About Me

I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom.
I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated unidentified trolling will be deleted as spam.

Friday, April 26, 2013

A "Good Man"

At the opening of the George
W. Bush Presidential Library, President Obama praised “a good man” with “incredible
strength and resolve”.

Maybe Obama is still under
the delusion that the sentiment behind this unctuous remark will be returned by
Republicans when his library is opened. Yeah, right.

The Washington post reports that Bush: joked
that there was a time in his life when he “wouldn't have been found at a
library, much less found one.”

That would be a joke
alright, if the truth is a joke.

The Post also informed us:

Clinton joked about the newest facility in the presidential
library system, calling it the “latest, grandest example of former presidents
to rewrite history.”

And as I said, that would be a joke
alright, if the truth is a joke.

Thanks to Bush remaining largely
out of the media and silent on issues, as well as the famous lack of memory in
the American public, Bush’s approval rating has gone up from the 30’s to the 40’s
in percentage points.

I should add that this is
due in no small part to Obama’s “looking forward” and his refusal to
investigate torture and the reasons given for invading Iraq. Maybe he
thinks that will cover his ass when his misdeeds are revealed. It should. Bush
and Cheney have proven that an American Administration can get away with launching
a war based on lies, building a surveillance state, subverting the Fourth
Amendment and various other crimes against humanity and freedom.

Bush is in his glory now,
praised for his “principles and “incredible strength and resolve”.

We can forget the crashed
economy and skyrocketing unemployment the great “Decider” left us.

Bygones.

You’d think the guy actually
accomplished what he claimed. Remember all that talk about defending and “spreading
freedom”?

He sure didn't do that for
the United States.
The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the FISA Amendment, etc., with the warrantless surveillance of
Americans and arrest and incarceration without charges and counsel haven’t exactly
protected our freedom.

How about all that freedom
spread over in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Turns out:

Iraq’s political rights rating declined from 5 to 6 due to
the concentration of power by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and increasing
pressure on the political opposition, as exemplified by the arrest and death
sentence in absentia of Vice President Tariq al Hashimi, the country’s most
senior Sunni Arab politician.

Maliki is obviously less
brutal than Saddam Hussein, but still, that’s not exactly the ideal result. As
for Afghanistan,
it’s a similar story. Hamid Karzai is a step up from the Taliban but the
country is still “not free,” according to Freedom House.

Last Tuesday political violence
in Iraq
killed at least 56 people

Ugly, very ugly. But forget
about all that.

Let’s go back to fantasy
land; that happy world where we see Bush’s dream of building a “freedom
Institute” come to fruition.

As I reported on Tuesday, September 4, 2007:

====

The George W. Bush Freedom Institute

As Congress returns from
vacation to resume its duties of subservient ineptitude, there is nothing like
a new book about our Fearless Leader and Decider to cheer us up. You just know
there would be a few nuggets of truth revealed that would embarrass the
administration. Journalist Robert Draper interviewed Rove, Cheney, Laura Bush,
and many senior White House and administration officials. He was even granted
six interviews with Bush.

In "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush," Draper writes that
Karl Rove told his boss that he knew nothing about CIA operative Valerie Plame
Wilson. This was after Rove and others leaked her identity. An indignant George
even told us he would investigate and “take care” of the leaker. Draper writes,
"When Bush learned otherwise, he hit the roof." Amazing. They even
lie to each other.

We also learn what Bush is planning on doing after he leaves office. It’s
uplifting to know that, besides his wish to "replenish the ol'
coffers" by giving paid speeches, he wants to build a “Freedom Institute.”
Yup, that should do quite nicely to reflect his glorious legacy. A grateful
nation (or shall I say planet?) will be blessed with the George W. Bush Freedom
Institute.

I can picture it all now. We approach the magnificent structure, perched like a
shining city on a hill. We tingle in anticipation of beholding the many gifts
of the eight-year George W. Bush Presidency. Out in front is the beautiful
Fountain of Conservative Justices, reminding us that democracy needn’t be all
about having more votes than the other guy.

As we first solemnly pass through the Twin Portals of Shock and Awe, we are
almost overcome by our own insignificance. Then we move into the foyer where we
wipe the mud from our shoes into the Bill of Rights Doormat. We check our coats
at the Closet of Conservative Compassion. Be sure to notice the sign saying,
“Not responsible for lost or stolen liberties.”

Fittingly, we then climb to greater heights on the Staircase of Stolen
Elections. We now enter the Corridors of Unchecked Power.

As we pass through the Photo Op Gallery we see the Mission Accomplished Flight
Suit Display. Gosh, it still swells us with the power of pride.

Take a hard turn to the right and we peer down the long Hall of Surveillance,
ending with the Wall of Secrecy.

Moving on, we find the Permanent War Pavilion, with its two seemingly endless
wings. Enter the Operation Enduring Freedom Wing or the Operation Iraqi Freedom
Wing. Either way, you’ll find nothing but the fruits of freedom. Don’t get lost
or mired on the way, we need to advance past the Office of Unaccountability to
the largest room in the building. We gasp in astonishment as we gaze at the
cavernous Library of Lies.

I’m sure by now we have gained quite an appetite, so we head over to the Cooked
Intelligence Café for a taste of whatever they want to feed us.

Our tour now takes us past the ScooterLibbyMonument
to Obstructed Justice, and down into the lower levels.

Be careful not to fall into the Al Gonzales Memory Hole as we approach the
Cheney Bunker of Undisclosed Locations. Unfortunately we are locked out of this
exhibit.

As we venture deeper into the darkest recesses, we see that the Saddam Hussein
Torture Chamber is closed, too. And since we’ve just eaten, maybe we will
forego the Dungeon Diorama of Alternative Interrogation Techniques. Oh, well.
It’s better left a secret. We don’t want to embolden the enemy, do we?

Not to worry, the Abu Ghraib and GitmoWelcomeCenters
are still accepting visitors. And if you’re curious, the Texas Execution
Chamber is always busy.

As we prepare to leave the George W. Bush Freedom Institute, some of you may want
to stop and browse at the Millionaire Donors’ Tax Free Gift Shop. Maybe you can
pick up a couple souvenirs for your friends. Don’t worry if you don’t see any
price tags on the gift items. If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.

====

Let’s conclude our trip down "Memory Hole Lane" with some of
the wisdom and “compassionate conservatism” our great Chickenhawks left us.

“I just want you to know
that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush

“One of the keys to being seen as a great
leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political
capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much
capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I
want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.” – G.W.B. 1999

“Now, by the way, any time
you hear the United States
government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court
order. Nothing has changed, by the way..." – G. W. B. 4-20-04

"If we
make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again." – Dick
Cheney’s ’04 election “advice”.

I suppose President Obama and the former presidents at the dedication HAD to be dishonest in their praise of GWB. If Mr. Obama had told the truth about GWB's presidency, that would have been a scandal of epic proportions in the FAUX NOOZ followers' minds.

They said what protocol demanded of them, and let's hope it will all be forgotten as Bush's true legacy remains.

Unfortunately the stupid is what corporate media nurtured in the public when they were cheerleaders for war, along with their continuing being unquestioning stenographers for everything perpetrated by their compatriots in corporate government.

Shaw,I could more easily overlook the protocols if Obama hadn't continued so much of the Bush legacy. As George Carlin said, "They're looking out for number one, and you and I ain't even number two."

Dave, Bushes approval rate may have gone up a bit, but 40% is still not overwhelming. I think this is a temporary road bump and as soon as the shine wears off the library opening, the numbers will drop again.

And I have to agree with Shaw Kenawe that Obama and the other presidents really didn't have much choice but to say nice things about the former Idiot in Chief. Keep in mind that even the GOP didn't want him around during the last election.

Charles,The rituals, routines and protocols of office can be followed to a certain degree without complaint from me. However when the neglect of duty and rule of law are institutionalized, as has been the case now, I have even less respect for these trimmings of office functions.

More and more it is becoming obvious Obama is working at being just another acceptably embarrassing ex-president, than the force of change and responsibility to the public that he promised.

His latest subservience to the gripes of airlines and relatively well-off air travelers is yet another of his genuflecting and kowtowing to elites, and abandonment of the public good. So much for the sequester's "shared sacrifice". If it inconveniences the wealthy, then it will not be tolerated. Public services for the poor and sick...meh.

Charles Moore: "And I have to agree with Shaw Kenawe that Obama and the other presidents really didn't have much choice but to say nice things..."

What former presidents do, or say, is of no concern to me. However, when a sitting president attends a ceremony commemorating a war criminal's exploits and wrongdoings, the underlying message is that he's declaring those policies and/or events to be legitimate or proper.

The term "Bush derangement syndrome" (BDS) is a made-up word by right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer. It carries no validity. Is it possible you're also willing to align with "Hitler derangement syndrome" and the systematic and associated genocide of over six million Jews?

War crimes, and other crimes against humanity, are very real offenses, and should never be confused with one's labeling of paranoia in someone else as a means of defending a president's misguided and criminal war policies.

Good to see my humor, seasoned with the truth, gets a laugh from a true believer. You do, after all, still buy into, or allow, all the lies about WMD's, "nukular" aluminum tubes, Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda and most of all the war intended for crony profit and political gain. Apparently you believe, or allow, the lie about search warrants too.

You are hysterical.

If there's such an thing as BDS equal to ODS, then I would be questioning Bush's birth, his religion, and saying he "hates America". I would be making up lies about him wanting "death panels" and being a "Marxist president". And this is all crap espoused on their right wing "mainstream" corporate media.

You really don't know derangement until you see the Right's Obama Derangement Syndrome.

No comparison. This is the typical false equivalence and projection so lovingly embraced by the radical Right.

JG,It's that authoritarian Right Wing projection and fantasy again. We're seeing a guy full of real paranoia, about a Marxist president coming to take his guns, accusing us of paranoia based on real events and and false reasons for war.

Their only defense is to toss out false accusations. Their false equivalence is a useful platform for such accusations and psychological defense mechanisms.

I didn't think the post was all that funny, but I always get a hoot out of BDS in action. Nearly as much as I do ODS, but since your laughable claims about Bush are so idiotic I get the most humor out of that. What I can never understand about those that duffer from either condition, is there were and are so many true and factual problems with both administrations I can never understand why people focus on the conconspiracy theory nonsense.

Jefferson's Guardian, you said:"Obama had a choice -- he could have stayed home."Knowing the irriraional hate and desire from the right to oppose Obama and bring him down, can you imagine the uproar if he had NOT attended.

I prefer to see things with a little more grey than the simple black and white that you and Dave seem to like.

And don't bother to reply. I came here simply because I usually enjoy Dave's comments on Tom Deagan's Rant, but I will not be back here again. My first and last time.

”Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” - GWB, 2003 State of the Union

And

"And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest ... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes," Cheney said, referring to one of the elements for making nuclear weapons.

The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

And:

Cheney August 2002:

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

And:

“It’s been pretty well confirmed that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April,” Cheney said on Meet the Press on Dec. 9, 2001.

In what world is it “derangement” to question these lies?

In what world are such questions regarded as “laughable claims about Bush are so idiotic”

"He started off painting dogs. I think he said he painted 50 dogs," Flood said. "He pulled out this canvas and started painting dogs and I though Oh my God, I don't paint dogs!"~ George W Bush's art teacher

.... and soon he will paint them playing poker ....done on black velvet.

Bush and library are still contradictions of terms.He is as useless on the political scene now as he was for the eight years of his incumbency. His own party has dropped all reference to him, no one seeks his counsel, he has no memoirs to publish, the best that can happen to America is that we forget all about him.....but we can't because he has mired the country into one of the greatest financial and sociological morasses since Moses took the Hebrews out of Egypt. At least they built some Pyramids before they left. Bush has left us what? A library full of comic books. sheesh

Dave, you have become a charicature of progressivism. You would have far more credibility if you would stop and realize that everything you accuse Bush of, and a fair amount with legitimacy, you could also attribute to the current ass-hat in chief... only more so.

Obama has lost more men in Afghanistan in his first four years than Bush did in all eight of his. Obama has eroded and infringed on our 1st, 2nd, and fourth amendment rights with gusto. How about we call ALL of the politicians out when they disregard their oaths of office and not just the ones of the party with which we might disagree?

Oh and the "blatantly obvious" is that Bush invaded Iraq based on intelligence that was corroborated by international agencies and other credible sources. He also had congressional approval.

Obama committed our troops to help overthrow Kadafi in Libya and had them stay well past the 180 days without congressional approval in violation of the War Powers act. So tell me who is the damned war criminal?

TP,In my recent post I said: "While I’m more annoyed at Obama for his free handed war making, surveillance state and Wall Street coddling, I admit he was right about..."

So, yes, I air my objections to Obama.

As the title indicates, this post was about the great "Decider".

And you are being incredibly generous with: "intelligence that was corroborated by international agencies".

No international agency said Saddam had connections to Al-Qaeda, an active nuclear weapons program, "nukular" aluminum tubes, or evidence of WMD stockpiles.

None.

These were all untrue. In fact some of our senior intelligence people objected to the aluminum tube and other lies.

The blatant lies I showed above were not corroborated by international agencies, or anyone else. Did you read them? I think you should know that.

Cowardly congressional support means only that they were cowed. The war fever was pitched close to mid-term election time. They followed the herd so as not to be labeled "soft on terror" and anti-American, as Republicans surely did to those of us who dissented.

President Obama is the product of a good upbringing. He's a gentleman. At least he didn't say Bush was a good president.

Predictably and pathetically, Republicans are trying their best to rewrite history. They've got a tough row to hoe. Over the past half century the GOP has given us one attorney general and three top-level presidential advisers who wound up in federal prison; the first president to resign in disgrace; two illegal wars; a president-elect who illegally made a deal with a hostile, hostage-holding power and went on to preside over illegal arms deals and a secret war in violtion of law and Congress' clear intent; and finally, The Worst President in U.S. History, whose political hacks tried their damnedest to turn the Justice Department into the Republican Party's Dirty Tricks Department; had an advisor wind up in prison for perjury; lied us into an unnecessary war at the cost of 4,500 lives of our soldiers; turned a $650 billion surplus into a $4.2 trillion deficit; did his best to wreck oversight and regulation of business, trashing the economy, costing millions of families their homes and milions more their jobs and/or businesses in the process -- the list goes on and on.

If the voting public falls for the polite happy talk and rewriting of history that went on this past week, they will get what they deserve going forward.

We didn't get two terms of George W. Bush because people made well-informed and wise choices. Obama doesn't have the powers bestowed by the wildly misnamed Patriot Act because an informed, engaged public made wise choices when voting for legislators.

Again, we have a democracy here. We can grouse about lousy leadership all we want The fact is, we don't get those leaders as Cracker Jacks prizes. We the people buy into happy talk, political propaganda, Limbaugh and Beck's spew, and Fox's so-called news. We give in to fear, resentment and selfishness, and support those who pander to and exploit those negative traits. We don't bother with local political party functions. We don't write our legislators demanding better. We let ourselves be misled, distracted and divided while the slide toward plutocracy gains momentum.

In the final analysis, we had in Bush, certainly from 2004 on, the people's bad choice. If people fall for the whitewash spin being spread over the country by a disgustingly compliant media and our painfully polite ex-presidents, we'll get what we deserve, and that will be as bad or worse than what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney brought us. And, in the final analysis, we the people will get what we deserve.

SW,Like medieval times, power players of the game are rewarded for treachery and dishonesty. We are entering a new feudal order; this time by "divine right of wealth".

TP,

And let's not forget this.

British Intelligence had misgivings about Bush Administration war justifications.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLYDAVID MANNINGFrom: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

We remember the Republicans desperately attempted to lie that the word "fixed" meant something different in England. This is again, something no international agency corroborated. Tony Blair wasn't called Bush’s “lapdog” for nothing.

You can't possibly say the Bush adminsitration wasy "lying" beause a whoping four analysts at CIA said Iraqs WMD program was shut down. Trust me, the CIA has more than a handful of intelligence analysts. What do you think they were saying?

Never mind that Saddam Hussein gased and killed thousands of people with chemical weapons and never even attempted to account for his stockpiles or cooperated with inspections of that program.

You're suggesting Bush should have trusted the word of Saddam Hussein.

Nobody would ever do that. Bush 41 didn't, Clinton didn't and Bush 43 didn't either. It was a 12 year trend, one whose fault lies squarely with Saddam Hussein.

And there is no debate, that Bush had Congressional authorization for the war. They signed it.

So if you want to be critical of President Bush for TARP or Medicare Part D, or NCLB, or some elements of the Patriot Act as I am then fine.

"Never mind that Saddam Hussein gased and killed thousands of people with chemical weapons and never even attempted to account for his stockpiles or cooperated with inspections of that program."

While you're getting all wrought up about all those thousands(?) of people Saddam killed with chemical weapons, you might want to save a tear or two for families and friends of the approximately 1 million Iraqi and Iranian casualties of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. played a role in keeping that costly, futile war going by supplying Iraq with arms, munitions and intelligence — not something to be proud of. This is from Wikipedia:

"The Americans and the British also either blocked or watered down UN resolutions that condemned Iraq for using chemical weapons against the Iranians and their own Kurdish citizens."

"The Americans" refers to the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. Ahem.

--

"You're suggesting Bush should have trusted the word of Saddam Hussein."

No one then or now suggested just taking Saddam's word for anything. What sentient people in this country, in Western Europe, the Mideast and at the U.N. did call on Bush to do was simply let the U.N. inspectors finish their work and file their report before starting a war.

Bush had his own agenda, however, and doing the sensible thing wasn't part of it. As president he was like a kid with his dollar allowance burning a hole in his pocket. He wanted to be a respected war leader, with big rewards of public approval and political capital to show for a glorious victory. What Bush ended up with was this: Worst in war, worst in peace, worst in the hearts of his countrymen.

I think you're assuming wrongly that my heart bleeds for the dead Kurds, or the Iranian soldiers Saddam gassed. It doesn't. Yeah for the Kurds it was sad. For the Iranians not so much. Either way, bad shit happens. My simple point was that clearly Hussein had a chemical weapons program. The bodies of those Kurds and Iranians is pretty hard evidence. After the Gulf War Saddam made only the most token efforts to comply with the 91 cease fire he signed. We had to bomb him and Iraq repeatedly during the 90s and that didn't work. I don't think another strongly worded letter from Hans Blix was going to change anything.

Bush knew something that you liberals can't grasp about the middle east. Force works there, and that's it. Obama is learning this. Back when I had my blog two years ago you could have read about my support for the free Syrian Army. I wrote then that if we didn't get some air power over Syria and a presence there ASAP the radicals would move in and take the rebellion from Syrian Army troops who refused to slaughter their own countrymen to a jihadi factory.

Two years later its a jihadi factory because Obama is a pussy. What could have been an easy operation... that window is shut. Now you better hope Syria gasses every last rebel to death or in five years they will be here, just like after Afghanistan. If we had stayed in Iraq we could have wiped them out, now they are in Syria in close proximity to chemical weapons. Oh yay. I'm so glad your liberal ideas on how to conduct policy won out. Another example of what happens when you let liberals defend the country. They think you can talk your way out of everything when you folks can't even keep the embassies from getting over run and our diplomats murdered. 1979, 1998, 2012. Every time we get a Democrat President we hear about the diplomacy and then US embassies are shortly after, over run and the diplomats are killed or taken hostage.

When are you going to learn. When it comes to the middle east you have to use raw, naked power. Both Bush President's understood this. Reagan didn't, and neither does Obama. Now in five years the American people will be screaming for full blown war with Syria over the huge pile of American bodies the jihadis in Syria will create.

You can't possibly say the Bush adminsitration wasy "lying" beause a whoping four analysts at CIA said Iraqs WMD program was shut down. Trust me, the CIA has more than a handful of intelligence analysts.

The “four analysts at CIA” straw man needs no rebuttal.

What do you think they were saying?

They were originally saying what they thought was true, until Dick the Cherry Picker Cheney went to Langley and told them what he wanted to hear. We know this is true.

Never mind that Saddam Hussein gased and killed thousands of people

That’s what Reagan, Rummy and Bush the First all felt as they pocketed the receipts and shared satellite info with Saddam.

There is no debate about a cowed, deceived, self-serving and ignorant congress approving the war. The debate is about the reasons given.

Got nukular aluminum tubes? No? Then they lied. They lied because they were told the truth about the tubes and didn’t like it. So the lied.

Bush knew something that you liberals can't grasp about the middle east. Force works there, and that's it. Obama is learning this....

When are you going to learn. When it comes to the middle east you have to use raw, naked power. Both Bush President's understood this. Reagan didn't, and neither does Obama.

This sputtering, seasoned with contradiction, is what every tyrant says about the whole world.

If you must use force by “raw naked power”, it had better be based on facts, or the blowback will be at your door.

In the game of power as the US plays it, millions of innocents may perish along with some bad people. But there’s no accountability for the ones who abuse that power; only blowback for the people who were misled for so long by the unaccountable liars.

Look at all the dupes who STILL think Bush and Cheney were telling the truth....

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" July 22, 2003

Not that facts seem to matter to many of you, but there were unaccounted for WMD's of Saddam's that he kicked out the UN investigators from the country before finding. Further we telegraphed by months that we were going to invade Iraq again if he didn't comply. Many intelligence analysts suspected that Saddam hid his WMD's or transferred them to Syria. I have seen some credible speculation that those chemical weapons that Assad is using against the rebels may very well be some of those Iraqi unaccounted for weapons. Again, we did half the job because of asinine limp-wristed politicians who are more concerned about their poll numbers and the result is more dead people and future trouble for the United States.

TP,Thank you for showing us Clinton’s support for war. Yes, he said those words, didn’t he?

Hillary was a hawk and talked like that too. As I mentioned, it was practically the only way to get re-elected, to our national shame.

Many intelligence analysts suspected that Saddam...”

I wish I had a dollar for every time that line was used without supporting evidence.

Ah, Bill (the best Republican President Ever) Clinton. Yes we believe everything he says too.

Interesting assertion. Yes that’s all it is. The assertion is not backed by evidence. We should be used to that by now.

So just what are “unaccounted for stocks”, we may ask. Are they real, and how are they different from fantasy stocks? It happened that “unaccounted for stocks” no longer existed. Could that be possible? Of course. And this is not even an assertion on my part. It is a suggestion of a real possibility. Is there evidence of unaccounted for stocks being destroyed? Yes.

One may also ask how many were destroyed without documentation, as our troops did unwittingly at times at the close of Iraq War !. That happened too you know. Iraq also destroyed stocks without documenting the fact.

Between Iraq War I and Iraq War !! UN Inspectors were in the country. Know what they found, or didn’t find?

And who “kicked out the UN investigators from the country”? Does this fact matter? This sounds like a typical case of believing what one wants to believe. Something we should all try to be aware of more often.

You are repeating a Bush lie right there. They were withdrawn because Bush was in a hurry to start his war.

Look it up. In fact you need to look up a few things it seems.

Let me give you start.

They left only because the United States warned them to get out before the bombs started to fall on March 19, 2003.

The heads of the weapons inspections regime in Iraq reported to the Security Council today that procedural cooperation in the disarmament process in Iraq continued to improve in recent weeks, and to date they had found no weapons of mass destruction, but many banned weapons remained unaccounted for and that could only be resolved through Iraq’s “immediate, unconditional and active” cooperation.

There would be no possibility of such cooperation after the invasion, of course. But searches continued.

Know what they found?

Look it up. Show us your evidence, please.

Here’s some more stuff you didn’t know while you were believing Bush and Cheney about “nukular” aluminum tubes and “biological labs”.

Too late for any good, but on record nonetheless. Also:According to Newsweek on March 3, 2003 another defector,

Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect, told CIA and British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995 that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them.

Kamel was Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. Kamel told his Western interrogators that he hoped his revelations would trigger Saddam's overthrow. But after six months in exile in Jordan, Kamel realized the United States would not support his dream of becoming Iraq's ruler after Saddam's demise. He chose to return to Iraq, where he was promptly killed.

Yes, facts do matter.

But in light of everything, you may still choose to believe what you want to believe.

But, along with most of the world now, I cannot buy the stale and deadly lies.

I have to consider this facet. I think the idea of a President of the United States lying a country into war is so unbelievable and so horrible, and so against everything we've been taught, that the truth cannot be comprehended by some.

Yet, It is infinitely more assuring for them to believe the Black President is a Marxist foreign Muslim.

"First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

Clinton was pretty serious about Iraq's WMD program. He bombed them more than once over it. He also attacked them when Iraq had plans to assassinate Bush 41.

Not that any facts matter here. Watch as the hard left has to turn and burn its mind to make all the conspiracy theories that justify the BDS add up. Now Bill Clinton was basically a Republican Dave tells us... even though the actual GOP tried to put the man in jail. Its a total disconnect from reality. Even main stream Democrats couldn't believe this shit. Dave would have us believe Dick Chaney, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all part of the BIG LIE. That's why I'm laughing. Its tin foil hats and blind hate for GWB. He could have cured cancer, and they'd have found fault somehow. They hate Bush like white supremacists hate blacks. there is no rhyme or reason. Its just hate for its own sake. Bush wasn't a perfect President by any stretch of the imagination. But this is a great example here- of extremist thinking.

"After the Gulf War Saddam made only the most token efforts to comply with the 91 cease fire he signed."

Like hell. The way Saddam's troops were not just beaten but handed a complete, humiliating rout, leaving him in imminent danger of having Schwarzkopf's troops all over his capital within as little as 30 hours, scared the living crap out of Saddam.

Within three or four months of that defeat, Saddam's nuclear program was shut down and dismantled. He divested all nuclear materials and equipment. All that was left of it was a few looseleaf notebooks containing some notes and a stack of CD ROMs. That information was elicited from an Iraqi physicist who had worked in Saddam's nuclear program. The CIA questioned the scientist, who was no fan of Saddam, and he verified that the notebooks and CD's were all that were left. In 2002, under demands from the U.N. and U.S., Saddam handed over the notebooks and CD's. Cheney refused to believe that was all there was. He told Bush and Rice they didn't believe it either. Lo and behold, Bush and Rice didn't believe it either. The CIA concluded the physicist had no reason or incentive to lie.

Subsequent exhaustive searches within Iraq after the invasion failed to turn up any nuclear weapons programs tools, materials, plans or facilities. Saddam had complied.

It's not unreasonable to believe Saddam also complied when it came to chemical weapons. It's also not unreasonable to believe that rather than create a risky and costly chemical weapons industry, Saddam bought some chemical agents or weapons on the black market, probably from Russia or an Eastern European country, and used that on Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war, and some leftovers or new purchases later, on the Kurds.

What is clear and without doubt is that if Saddam had ever had any kind of viable budding nuclear weapons program or chemical weapons-producing capability, they were long gone by the time U.S. troops pulled into Baghdad.

Saddam was a tyrant, especially brutal to the defenseless. But like many a tyrant, he was a coward. His near-overthrow experience following the ouster and near decimation of his troops after his Kuwait overreach scared him. He was given a choice: comply or defy, and suffer the consequences if he got it wrong. Saddam complied. By all accounts, by all objective evidence, he complied.

Bush lied. Cheney, as Dave pointed out, compelled people well down the pecking order who valued their careers to see — and say — things his way. It can be that way when you're a GS-8 or 9 and a former congressman, defense secretary and current vice president of the United States is in your office, in your face and telling you what you had better think and what you had better say.

SW,They can’t offer real world evidence, only accuse us of being deranged. It’s called projection. Note how they cannot offer a shred of evidence to support their belief in the befuddled Decider’s lies.

I thank the late great Hunter S. Thompson for calling Bill Clinton the best Republican president we’ve had.

He eagerly embraced corporate written NAFTA, and repealed Glass/Steagall regulations of Wall Street, just like a good Republican. Old style Republican, that is. Now the Republican Party is the home of great thinkers like Bachman, Gomert, Palin and the rest of the cult of birthers, death panel nuts, and “Black Marxist Muslim President” haters.

And we are the deranged ones LO Frickin L!!

Not that any facts matter here.

This stuff just cracks me up. Free and TP’s “facts” are nothing but regurgitated Bush lies.

Why haven’t they shown us those nukular aluminum tubes, biological labs, active nuclear weapons program and Saddam’s ties to al-Qaeda?

If facts matter, that is.

LOL!!!

They won’t because they cannot, of course. But True Believers are like a cult. Only the “facts” given by their leaders matter. The truth is irrelevant. Ignorance is strength.

Why can’t the fact of these real statements be addressed by the True Beleivers?

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush

“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.” – G.W.B. 1999

“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way..." – G. W. B. 4-20-04

Do you think they’d take another look at those words and tell us why it’s derangement to disagree with this guy?

2: If the Intelligence community analysis was biased by the Bush administration; who was it biased by during the Clinton administration when it was making the same assessments? Why did Bill Clinton order air strikes on several occasions?

3: Saddam at one time had a nuclear reactor, the Israelis blew it up. By 2003, it was doubtful he had one. I'm positive no one ever said he had one this side of the turn of the century. However, it is safe to assume if his weapons dealers presented him with a stolen warhead he would likely have bought it. Either way, does his lack of a nuclear reactor absolve the US from enforcing the other provisions of the '91 cease fire agreement?

The answer is, Hussein NEVER cooperated. It took air strikes from Clinton and an invasion from Bush to MAKE him comply. That was the whole reason for the start of war. To force compliance with a document Hussein signed of his own accord. I document he had to sign, because he was under serious threat because he invaded his southern neighbor and was threatening to keep going all the way to the gulf of Aden. If there is blame to be held by anyone, it rests on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein.

What makes you so extreme is your clear jump to conclusions. Did the CIA overestimate the Iraq WMD capability? Yes. I think they did. I can say that with objective analysis. But you can't stop at that. You start connecting dots that don't exist, and then those connected dots lead to wild conclusions. Like that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Bush are all part of some vast conspiracy to lie to the American people. That Clinton was really a Republican. You even mentioned a guy who was an admitted drug addict and drunk who suffered from paranoid delusions (Hunter S. Thompson) as the guy who planted the idea in your mind. That should be your first clue you've gone off the deep end with BDS and political extremism. I'm a fan of HST, I own and enjoy many of his books and I read his column till his suicide. But dude, I accept the fact he was totally insane. The only projection here is yours, and its root is your own obsessive hatred for GWB.

Jerry,The need for faith, mythology, and higher guidance is deep within the human psyche, whether it is religious fundamentalism or not.

All politics, by nature, require some measure of faith, or trust, on the part of the voter. Most of us rely on it to some degree, despite our real reasons for cynicism and skepticism. We all hope for something better, albeit from different perspectives.

This is why "hope and change" was a good campaign tactic. It is either that or, "fear them and trust us".

Sometimes fear wins, other times hope wins. Both are cynically employed by power seekers. The difference being hope and change are what we need. The true believers of "fear them and trust us" cannot understand because they believe in, and are fearful of, what is not real. They are more influenced by the primitive fear center of the Amygdala part of our brain. Thus we see the effectiveness of "death panels" and "Black Marxist Muslim President" and "nukular" aluminum tubes.

Science supports the physiological differences between liberals and conservatives. And of course, conservatives are far more likely to buy into anti-science rhetoric from Big Money interests.

And they need to call us "deranged" for questioning what does not exist, while they believe in stuff that is not there. Such is the authoritarian follower personality of the true believer.

Bless their hearts, for they know they are right...no matter what the truth is.

Bush/Cheney told us he had active biological/chemical labs, ties to al-Qaeda, a nuclear weapons program, and ever the ever sinister "un-manned drones".

The fact remains, he did not have what the liars told us he had. He also didn't use any on us. Why? What did he have to lose? Perhaps the "unaccounted for remnants" were not known to him or available to him.

And as I told you, the war itself gave terrorists the easiest access to those remnants. It was the war, not Saddam, that drove out the inspectors.

The answer is, Hussein NEVER cooperated.

Obviously you didn't go to the link to the UN press release I gave above.

Arguing with Free is like arguing with a bowl of lime jello, but at least you can add pineapple to the jello and eat it.

I swear, Free will only speak of which he knows nothing. The topic IS... GW Bush was a lousing president who bankrupted the country and started needless wars.

Free has said nothing to the contrary.Frankly, Obama has had many failings, but with the obstructionist, racist, partisan politics of the day,.....worse scenarios could have occurred.....as in "McCain wins election: has Heart Attack. Palin is president." Sarah Palin could have really been a great Presidnet.

Dave.... You are correct about acquired tastes. It took me forty years to appreciate Limburger cheese...... the stuff stinks yet the flavor is good. But it is nourishing.

I have many concerns about Obama... yet I truly believe he will leave a legacy much richer than what Bush left. I consider him an egotist, with deep self doubt, and insecurity issues The man had the intellectual capacity of a drunk frat boy. I would listen to his speeches and marvel at how well the speech writers did to 'dumb down' the language for him.The Wasilla Queen was much the same.

"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric

I remember watching the VP Debates with the local city editor. Mid way through the first one he looked at me and said, "Obama just won." She makes Dan Qualye appear a Rhodes Scholar.

"Bank failures are caused by depositors who don't deposit enough money to cover losses due to mismanagement."Dan Quayle

Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor. It's the other way around. They never vote for us.Dan Quayle

Thomas Eagleton was a better choice. Joe Biden, I feel, is not a good candidate for 2016...but at least the man is competent and makes a decent VP.

GW Bush is an idiot. Was an idiot. And now he does 'paint-by-numbers' for therapy. Guess the shock treatments didn't take.

Bush 43 is an idiot? Never mind he has an MBA from HARVARD -how many of us can claim that? I can't. Can you?

Never mind that. What you're telling us, is this chimp, this moron, this idiot... was able to hatch with the help of Bill Clinton, "Neo Cons" and Dick Chaney a massive, well coordinated conspiracy that manipulated the press, Congress, and the entire American people. Pretty good for someone who is stupid. Never mind that he got an MBA from Harvard, ran some businesses and owned a profitable sports team - which of us can say that? In fact not only is he an idiot you tell us, he's mentally insane.

"As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense."

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."

"This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base."

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right." --Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

"People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you"

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it...I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet...I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere"

"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here."

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease.

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a

"I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan airport."

"Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."

LOL. Fine collection of quotes. Of course context is everything when one mis-speaks...except for the Black President.

No, he's not an idiot. He's extremely incurious, and was one of the most uninformed Presidential candidates ever. We remember "General General" of Pakistan. Even I know who Musharraf was.

And tell us if you care, how did the Shrub get into Harvard? How did he get the money for the Texas Rangers? Who paid for their new stadium? What aristocratic privilege was ever unavailable to the Prodigal war hero son, who avoided a physical and urine test for flight eligibility in the Guard.

Grounded he was.

Neo Cons" and Dick Chaney a massive, well coordinated conspiracy that manipulated the press, Congress, and the entire American people

Yes, once the corporate media likes your war you're on your way. And they do love the profits of war "coverage". We remember Cheney quoting the New York Times on Meet The Press, announcing how they corroborated the same line they were fed by...Cheney.

OK. Idiot may be inappropriate....incurious, ill-informed are suitable. As is lazy. Of his first six months in office almost three, total time, were spent at his 'ranch' in Texas. He was content to let the people 41 selected for him to truly manage operations. Ill-prepared would be apropos as well. He said stupid shit because ...he..did..not..prepare himself. When you make a state visit...be prepared...when you hold a press conference realize that people will ASK questionsThe man wanted to BE President, but never wanted to do the real work.He was going to cash in on the Budget surplus and give his buddies the cash. He care less of what Cheney did than that Cheney 'just took care of it. He even was able to mismanage a war by letting corporate mercenaries profit so as to keep troop levels lower than what was needed.

You are correct.... had he come from a farm family of modest means in the middle of Iowa.... he would still be swilling beer and yucking it up with his buddies at the pool hall on saturday night. He had advantage, position, privilege, money, prestige.... and now he is painting dog portraits and playing golf. He squandered it all.

He even was able to mismanage a war by letting corporate mercenaries profit so as to keep troop levels lower than what was needed.

Or what existed. We were stunningly unprepared for the multi-front war on terror. I won't bother assigning blame to one person for that. It just happened. Who really could have seen that coming anyway?

The point is, it did happen. And we needed the contractor support. Badly. What is unacceptable is the current President cutting where he is to save big programs from Democrat districts at the expense of warfighters still engaged in combat. We're in an active land war and Obama is cutting ground troops by the tens of thousands after we rebuilt the service during a war no less.

This is what happens when you let Democrats defend America.

But hey! We got some new multi billion dollar nuclear submarines built by union labor in Connecticut that we didn't need! Yah Democrats!

Something tells me you don't have an MBA from Harvard either. Yest I'm so sure you're more intelligent and articulate / sarcasim

that is the point... Bush didn't care... he did it anyway

War comes when it comes. Should we have not fought WWII because we were woefully unprepared after Pearl Harbor? You go to war with military you have, not the one you wish you had. And you'll wish we had the one GWB built when we have to go to war with Syria and likely Iran too in a few years. You know, the one Obama is taking apart.

Say, have you thought of the Library Guard job? I think you could handle it..

I guess after Iraq bombed Pearl Harbor... was the right time, huh?(sarcasm)

"Something tells me you don't have an MBA from Harvard either."

damn, I told that little bird not to tell you! Say, did he give you that aluminum hat I sent? (sarcasm)

fact is, Free, you cannot keep on topic and have now resorted to ad hominem attacks.

I have never engaged in the posturing that you do...and, frankly, they are laughable.

... and so is GW BUSH. He is a self-avowed average student...who relied solely on his family connects\ions for most everything in his life. Just live with the truth..... I would engage you further, but,truly, you are boring, and my editor at Random House is getting peeved with my delays. He wants the book ready for a Christmas release. It is about a delusional security guard with a MBA who aspires to be mercenary in Syria. Do you have further dialogue I can use?

More like simple facts. And one of those facts is the war started for Al'Qaeda long before 9-11. The American people simply noticed on 9-11 they had declared war on the U.S. We weren't prepared for it. Our entire military was not set up to deal with it non-state actors. We treated groups like Al'Qaeda as a law enforcement problem prior to 9-11. That was a mistake. I won't bother casting blame. The point is we spent ten years growing the military to deal with them, and now Obama is dismantling what we built.

Free, you cannot keep on topic

One of you said Bush was stupid. I was curious which of you had graduated Harvard? I mean if you're so smart...

As for any activities in Syria. I hate both what the Free Syrian Army has become and the regime. If you see any job offers out there, let me know ;)

I'd love to kill either. Or both. I'm not picky between the two. And since my government is too chicken to do it, I might as well get paid by the highest bidder. Heck, I'd take a little less than 2000 a week.

Free0352: "I'd love to kill either. Or both. I'm not picky between the two. And since my government is too chicken to do it, I might as well get paid by the highest bidder. Heck, I'd take a little less than 2000 a week."

Once a tool, always a tool.

You've claimed, time and time again, that al-Qaeda is the enemy; the scourge to be wiped from the face of the earth. Now you claim you're willing to fight side-by-side with them.

I guess that makes you "the enemy" (not to mention a treasonous traitor).

Ah, no. I thought I made it clear I can't stand either the Syrian government OR Al'Qaeda. Once Al'Qaeda took over the Free Syrian Army, I lost my sympathy for that group very quickly because they are... how did you put it Jeff?

"Saddam at one time had a nuclear reactor, the Israelis blew it up. By 2003, it was doubtful he had one. I'm positive no one ever said he had one this side of the turn of the century. However, it is safe to assume if his weapons dealers presented him with a stolen warhead he would likely have bought it."

Saddam was enough of a dim bulb that he might've bought a phony contraption presented to him as a nuclear warhead.

I clearly recall after the turn of the century when Condoleezza Rice raised the specter of a mushroom cloud. That was part of a deliberate and calculated propaganda campaign to get Bush authority to do what he came to office intending to do -- invade Iraq and get Saddam.

Let's look at what Iraq was and where it was in January, 2002. Iraq was a comparitively weak, poor Third-World country. Its leader was a tinpot dictator who fancied himself a military genius when his record was that of a tragi-comic bungler so ignorant and inept he made Benito Mussolini look good. Saddam's people feared and hated him. Iraqi society was a ticking time bomb waiting to blow apart as soon as the cohesive pressure of Saddam's police-state terrorism could no longer hold it together.

Iraq's military was a study in what not to do. Start with its leaders, chosen not for excellence but rather for loyalty to Saddam. Thus, Saddam's military was poorly trained, badly organized and equipped, had horrible leadership and its troops were largely devoid of loyalty to their leader and government.

Because of the way Saddam had made a nuisance of himself, Iraq was put into a tight little box and closely surveilled by the U.S. military. If Saddam had had a nuclear warhead it would've been a liability, not an asset.

If anyone still doubts what a sorry piece of work Iraq's military was under Saddam, consider this. The most basic requirement for any nation's military is to plan, train for and be able to execute a credible defense against an invading force. The country might be small, poor and weak, but the least expected of its military is to seriously slow an invader down and make him pay a price, even if he has a larger, better force and inevitably wins. As we saw in the invasion of Iraq, Saddam's military had no credible plan to deal with an invasion at the most obvious and predictable place and route imaginable. Some individual Iraqi units fought bravely and well. Overall, the Iraqi military buckled and folded like a cheap card table, just as it had in the Kuwait desert.

And yet, this ignorant dolt of a dictator, his dysfunctional, poor country and its fourth-rate military were presented to the American people as the greatest threat to America since Hirohito gave the go-ahead for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The threat of a mushroom cloud was supposedly imminent. We were led to believe "we must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

In truth, Saddam was a mean, nasty bungler; Iraq was never a credible threat to the U.S.; containment was working and was all that was needed; all those alleged WMD's were so much scare talk uttered in pursuit of Bush's Day 1 goal of invading Iraq; as Bush eventually admitted and despite many statements and much innuendo to the contrary, Saddam was never in league with al Qaida; Bush, the crackpot crusaders and right-wing noise machine's lying propaganda was so intense and effective, people in Congress who should've known better let themselves be stampeded into giving Bush authorization for the use of force in Iraq; and because of all that, about 1 million people died unnecessarily, including about 4,500 of our troops.

This would all be laughable if it hadn't caused so many deaths, so much suffering and cost us about $1.2 trillion.

None of this is Bush derangement syndrome. It's history. It's what Bush earned the old-fashioned way, working hard every day to deserve his unique title, Worst President in U.S. History.

Before the Bush Administration, in his words, "catapulted the propaganda", one third of Americans believed Sadddam had something to do with 9-11. That alone revealed both deep ignorance and frightened gullibility. After they "catapulted the propaganda", after talk of "nukular" aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, and Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda, two thirds believed Saddam was behind 9-11.

"BDS" is disagreeing with liars. We've gone over the significant lies here and none were proven correct. You'd think we insulted their grandmothers or something.

It is cult of true believers. This is how nations are led to economic ruin and destruction.

I agree. Saddam Hussein, not a smart man. But he was still in violation of the '91 cease fire. Smart or dunb we had to enforce his terms of surrender he signed in 1991. We couldn't simply surround Iraq forever. It was time for him to go, before his lunatic children got in control of that cluster fuck. But for me, it was enough that Islamic Jihad and Omar Zarqaui were there in 2002 fresh off the battlefield in Afghanistan. I don't care if Zarqaui was making out with Saddam or camping out at the Iraqi security service nightly.

he was there. That was enough. He was the most brutal terrorist radical Islam ever produced. he almost got kicked out of Al'Qaeda for being too brutal. That should tell you something about the man. His network being in Iraq was reason enough.

Boy.... dat Free, I think we should send him to Syria RIGHT NOW! He would just beat the shit out of everyone and, gosh, that would solve dat. I think he should get the Ignoble Piece Prize. (sarcasm) (in case he didn't get it)(the sarcasm, not the Piece Pie) (he is fond of parentheses)

Besides, bombing the shit out of things is the American Way for men with balls.

Free0352: "I lost my sympathy for that group very quickly because they are... how did you put it Jeff?...the enemy; the scourge to be wiped from the face of the earth."

I put it that way, 'cause that's the way your paranoid mind thinks it.

For all practical purposes, al-Qaida is a bogus adult-oriented boogeyman created and exploited by our government to control and monitor the masses. It's the "communist threat" of our time. Vietnam was the playing-field to fight that era's imaginary threat back in the '60s and '70s; the middle-east serves as the same kind of backdrop for today's carefully crafted imaginary threat.

I read a snippet somewhere the other day about a recent poll that revealed (post "Boston bombing") that 60% of respondents feared they, or someone they know, will be killed or harmed in a terrorist attack. My only conclusion was that most Americans suffer huge challenges when it comes to probability theory.

The U.S. government knows this -- has for decades -- and propagates and incites this fear in order to push through what is normally unacceptable foreign and domestic policy.

For all practical purposes, al-Qaida is a bogus adult-oriented boogeyman

Tell that to the over 3000 Americans murdered on September 11th. Tell that to the families of the embassies in Kenya, Tanzania and Libya where they murdered our diplomats. Tell that to the widows of the men killed on the USS Cole. Tell that to the citizens of Anbar province and the hundreds of thousands of Shia they killed. Tell that to the victims of the Taliban.

Oh wait, all those things were really a master conspiracy hatched by stupid old George Bush who was able to manipulate all this long before he was even President... Tell us again how the CIA was able to sneak tons of phosphorus past the thousands of employees at the WTC and how no airplane really hit the Pentagon but that it was all missiles fired from secret airplanes.

Like I said, I need a good laugh. Talk about fear and paranoia. After all... You folks are the ones spouting conspiracy theories of the most tin foil hat variety. I guess you and Alex Jones have more in common than you like to think.

Free0352: "Tell that to the over 3000 Americans murdered on September 11th."

See! You do believe in a spiritual life!

Actually, as each year passes, more and more survivors of those murdered are doubting the official storyline.

"...all those things were really a master conspiracy hatched by stupid old George Bush..."

Not on your life! As you said, he was ("is") too stupid to conceive of such an evil act. But others weren't...

"Tell us again how the CIA was able to sneak tons of phosphorus past the thousands of employees at the WTC..."

I never told you anybody had to "sneak" anything by anyone, but now that you bring it up, it wouldn't have been too difficult. There was a lot of "maintenance" going on at night -- on floors that were supposedly blocked-off for renovation/construction. No trick there. Besides, it might not have been thermite that vaporized those buildings. As a matter of fact, it was may have been entirely something else, because conventional explosives wouldn't have toasted cars that were blocks away from the towers. Have you seen those vehicles? Pretty weird!

"...and how no airplane really hit the Pentagon but that it was all missiles fired from secret airplanes."

Show me video of a plane flying toward, and into, probably the most guarded and filmed building in the world.

I don't bowl, but I would enjoy sharing a beer with the guy. He's pretty fascinating.

As you know, I also question "investigations" that are thrown together in haste, and which don't examine and question all the available evidence. Since our government refuses to -- and the mainstream media are complicit in allowing these omissions -- there are thousands, like me, who do.

By the way, a few posts ago, on this very blog, I asked whether you read that white paper (that you demanded, and I provided). Have you read it yet?

Or...shall I just be satisfied in knowing that, besides being a tool, you're also an ostrich?

Alex Jones is fascinating? How? Being being an unhinge lunatic. This statement pretty much disqualifies you from the human race. You're too stupid to think. Sorry folks if you think thats to ad hom, but it just happens to be true.

Maybe because he asks questions... Some may be pure conspiracy fantasy, and some are legitimate concerns about erosion of the Bill of Rights.

And perhaps someone like Jones who believes Obama wants to confiscate our guns is Being an unhinged lunatic..

Either way, it is fascinating to see paranoia, and enlightening to see where that paranoia is generated and who feeds it, be it from secretive government, politicians' fear mongering, or wealthy "special interests".

Just ask those shrieking about a Black Marxist Muslim, Death Panel, Gun Grabbing President.

Free0352: "This statement pretty much disqualifies you from the human race. You're too stupid to think.

If you consider me too stupid to think, what does that say about you? ;-)

Gee, Free0352, I gave you way too much credit -- your response keyed on my casual remark about sharing a beer with the guy, while not saying a damn thing about the white paper.

Have you read it? If not, why not? I'm trying to spoon-feed you critical pieces of evidence that any jury would be presented if the case were permitted to be, and by New York state law should have been, tried in a court of law. But all you keep doing is burping up on your bib.

Doesn't it seem at least a bit curious to you that al-Qaeda was implicated, prosecuted, tried and convicted within twenty-four hours of that tragic day?

By the way, Free0352, I'd find it fascinating to sit down and have a beer with you, also. It's not because I agree with everything, or anything, you have to say. But you do have entertainment value. I know I'd get my money's worth.

Somebody once said there is no such thing as a stupid question. They were wrong. Some questions are idiotic. Alex Jones asks them. He isn't even right on guns. He's a colossal moron and if you find your self in agreement with him that's a good indicator you're an idiot.

He (Jones) isn't even right on guns. He's a colossal moron and if you find your self in agreement with him that's a good indicator you're an idiot.

Yes indeed, idiot or conspiracy dupe. Like Tim McVeigh, Jones, the "Second Amendment Remedy" Republican Tea Heads, and the NRA tell us we need guns to fight our tyrannical government. They love to promote the myth of Hitler's gun confiscation and tell us Obama wants to do what Hitler did, too.

But, just to be clear, if someone asks what happened to all the video footage of what hit the Pentagon, he's a conspiracy nut.

Here's a good one from Alex Jones..er, I mean Rand Paul, that is...unless...can one can tell the difference?

Dear fellow American,Hours after re-election, Barack Obama made a move for gun control...

The very next day, his administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the "Small Arms Treaty."

Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

What’s worse, the UN set March 18th-28th to meet to pass the final version of the treaty that will be sent to the Senate for ratification.

You and I will only have a few short months to prepare for this battle...

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE the United States to:*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.I’m helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate and I want your help.

Please join me by taking a public stand AGAINST this outright assault on our national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey below!

The Pentagon doesn't release its footage because the locations of its cameras are classified. That makes abundant sense. Any person who primarly breathes through thier nose knows if you see the camera footage you give away the locations of the cameras. Not wanting to give away the locations of its security cameras is just common sense and the bottom line is if you think of anything other than a giant airplane crashing into the Pentagon is what caused the damage to the Pentagon you needto get your head checked or remove the tinfoil hat. The problem with the twoofers is they are too stupid to be reqsoned with. You quite frankly just have no understanding of military ordinance explosives or common sense and you don't want any. that goes for those on the right like Alex Jones and morons on the left like you Jefferson who have no idea what you're talking about. if its Alex Jones hate for government or Jeffersons hate for George Bush it's really just the same thing, just a made up fairy story to explain away all there hate and logic just get. in the way.

Well Dave, if you don't think its a conspiracy and 9-11 was an inside job, why do you care? Drive up to any military base and the first thing you'll see is a big sign that says if you are caught taking pictures at the gate your camera will be confiscated and you will be fined and if you trespass deadly force is authorized. That's pretty standard. That same sign is in front of every military installation I've ever been to. That goes for the Pentagon. If you started taking unauthorized pictures of the Pentagon (even from certain public areas) a sentry can confiscate your camera. It happens all the time.

NOT allowing photographic evidence for public view breeds conspiracy theories. What could possibly be the reason a gas station's camera was confiscated and the images censored?

Birthers were at least given a photo of a birth certificate. Why not release a photo for the truthers?

Why give fodder to feed into conspiracy theories? The collapse of Building 7 and the censoring of photos clearly raise questions and give appearance of a cover-up. The people deserve an explanation with evidence for the erosion of our rights in a war on terror.

This same thing happened with the RFK assassination. A camera with photos of the event was seized and never returned to the owner. This behavior understandably raises reasonable questions. And that is all I'm posing.

There's a difference between asking questions and spinning conspiracy theories. Why does Benghazi require more answers than 9-11?

What answers do you need about 9-11? We know what happened. Well, all of us with an IQ over five do anyway.

As for classifying that stuff, when it comes to a military installation they can do that. Sorry. Your freedom to know does not go that far. I know for a fact the DOD could care less if you or someone else spins a stupid theory. I find the twoofer idiocy along with the Birthers or the Obama is a Muslim junk as a wonderful barometer for gauging basic intelligence. The evidence is all out there. Both official and unofficial. I won't bother with my opinion this time. I never did it to "win an argument" because I know better than to cast pearls before swine. But it is fun to drag the terminally stupid through the mud before the eternal record of the internet. I can link to Jefferson's or other twoofer threads and use is as evidence that the hard left is chock full of conspiracy minded, fallacy ridden fools. You could say the same for the hard right too of course. And I did, Alex Jones being my prime example.

Why not show us the photographic evidence? People ask for investigation and evidence of why WTC 7 fell.

As evidence for reason to go to war, it should be shown.

Your freedom to know does not go that far.

If our freedom to know doesn’t apply to a claimed justification for permanent war, then there’s not much foundation for our remaining freedoms.

“Shut up and obey”, could very well be the rest of the story. Only a fool would think Bush/Cheney didn’t seek political leverage under the guise of “national security”. All those politically convenient trumped up Bush Terror Alerts were a good way to start keeping the people in line.

You can bet on more of that with the next Right Wing president.

Why does Benghazi require more answers than 9-11?Imagine the reaction to, “Your freedom to know does not go that far” if invoked and applied to a diplomatic/intelligence station in Benghazi. The State Department and CIA could care less if you or someone else spins a stupid theory. Perhaps they could, but should they, in a free country?

The Republican Party is bonkers with conspiracy fever, even as open and shut as that incident was.

Why does Benghazi require more answers than 9-11?Because Republicans are up to the same old leveraging of national security for political gain.

Free0352: "If you started taking unauthorized pictures of the Pentagon (even from certain public areas) a sentry can confiscate your camera. It happens all the time."

Sure...they could, but don't. I've taken "unauthorized" pics of the Pentagon on several occasions, from the side the missile...er, plane, hit it. I haven't had my camera confiscated at any time.

Do you realize that the Pentagon is surrounded by public highways, and is visible from higher ground in several directions? Taking pictures is a snap. Pictures were routinely taken from the off-premises gasoline station's security camera. Immediately, the footage was commandeered by the FBI within minutes of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon. Pretty weird, huh? I mean, wouldn't you think the government would want the public to see this footage, just to quell any doubts?

Dave, Free0352 lives a life of lies and deception. I'm sure it has occurred to him, more than a few times, that if the official government narrative were proven to be false, his whole worldview would come shattering down around him.

Even if there was conclusive evidence presented that proved the 9/11 Commission and its findings to be false, he'd still never accept it. That's why he's scared shitless to read the whitepaper he so adamantly demanded of me. He doesn't want anything coming between the government's story and his own cognitive dissidence.

Needless to say, he's a tool of the elite and a tool of the military-industrial-security complex. Tools never think. They only follow.

They aren't going to allow a battle damage assessment for Al'Qaeda. That makes perfect sense. They can lawfully do that, and they should do that.

Sure...they could, but don't. I've taken "unauthorized" pics of the Pentagon on several occasions, from the side the missile...er, plane, hit it. I haven't had my camera confiscated at any time.

You committed a federal crime depending on the picture, that is punishable by up to five years in prison and a 10,000 dollar fine. You might not want to put that on the internet. Every military installation has a sign on its gate and fence that looks similar to this one.

They can literally snatch the camera out of your hand and never get it back. Give them any trouble and you go to Army Jail for the night, right then. In fact you might go even if you are nice depending on what you are photographing or making a sketch of. And that night in Army Jail might follow up with five years in FEDERAL PRISON.

So don't do it. Conviction of a violation of the Federal Internal Security Act of 1950 looks bad on a job application.

If Free wasn't an atheist he'd be joining Pat Robertson in blaming 9-11 on gays and liberal social policies

But I am an atheist. So stop projecting your Republican Caricature you have in your mind onto me. We already determined Dave you're the weak minded religious... oh wait my bad... spiritual type. Frankly, you have a lot more in common with Pat Robertson than I do, and so it would seem Alex Jones. Just to get it strait, Al'Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. And for that matter Benghazi. Period. If you deviate from that, you're an idiot on par with Pat Robertson and Alex Jones. Period.

Showing a photo of a plane headed to the Pentagon would reveal no secret and do no harm, and would give the people less reason to be suspicious of their government.

That is my point. It is valid. You can say anything you want, but censorship only reinforces citizens’ doubts about government secrecy.

So stop projecting your Republican Caricature

I’m not projecting. You wrap yourself in it.

liberals are incapable of defending America.

And there it is, Republican Caricature, presented in all its glory for our enlightenment. Very insulting to the liberals who died in uniform, but so what, eh? Hating liberals may make you Righties feel self-righteous, but it illuminates the real character of the vain and grandiose ideologues who embrace it. You are the one projecting again...and are hysterically wrong.

You may as well blame the gays and liberal social policy for 9-11, and tell us Obama is a Marxist Muslim who hates America. The radical Right eats that stuff up and you are serving it.

And under whose watch was 9-11? Liberals? LOL!

How capable were those conservatives who “defended” us then? This always cracks me up. The goofballs of the Right crow about how Bush “protected us from terrorism”, while conveniently ignoring the worst attack ever.

But such is the cult like belief system of the far Right. And one cannot reason with those who embrace cult beliefs.

But it’s fascinating hearing their wild hysteria presented as political thought. Bad for the nation, but amusing nonetheless.

You have a terrible memory. Dave never made such claims. Your utter confusion is only exceeded by your faux expertise in everything! "Me thinks" you've been exposed to too much DU. [I can't stop laughing!]

AL'Qaeda has been active since the Clinton administration. Three Presidents worth.

Attacks on American soil that were successful

Republicans: 1Democrats: 4

And heck, liberals couldn't even admit the Libya attack or the Ft Hood attack was even terrorism. You can't even define who the enemy is. In the case of Jefferson and perhaps you Dave, you can't or won't decide there even is one.

In light of that, this Libertarian will side with the GOP on national defense.

The enemy is the corporatism that has infiltrated our government branches, our state governments, and increasingly our municipal and local levels. That's the real terrorism that threatens our democracy and constitutional values. But, of course, they'd never tell you that. Why would they? They're winning and gaining more ground with each passing year.

"In the case of Jefferson and perhaps you Dave, you can't or won't decide there even is one."

JG,You're right. The most immediate threat to our prosperity, democracy and freedom is the corporatism that is seizing our government. Not far behind them, and occasionally in collusion, are the theocrats. Neither Bible thumping Christians nor Islamic Jihadists care much for secular government, equal rights, and the freedom for everyone to disagree and live outside their fundamentalist ideology.

We understand Libya was terrorism, despite Free's cult beliefs. And we understand the religious fundamentalist nature of the Fort Hood shootings. Sure they can call it terrorism, but since the targets were military personnel and not civilians, I think treason and murder would better fit the crime, at least according to most definitions of terrorism.

And yes there is Christian terrorism.

We've seen it from the crusades to witch burning, from legal medical practitioners being murdered, to a federal building being bombed. Not to mention launching a war based on lies. But then, that would be treason.

But we are not free to call it for what is is, without extreme anger from the Right.

Dave, looking back through Free's last few comments, it is easy to see he's stuck on the same canned and expected response that our government employs when anything that warrants another look, consideration, or explanation is requested. He has (as our government always does) fallen back on the typical "in the interest of national security" response -- as he customarily does on this particular subject.

Agreed. Being fair, Free0352 does provide some plausible concepts and opinions in areas. Very few, but still there are a few kernels of truth to some of the topics he has presented over the course of the last couple of years I've been visiting Dave's blog. Not enough to fill the bottom of a small popcorn bag, but still a few.

On this topic, though, he can't (or refuses to) spar with me. He can't argue with the fact that there are way too many extenuating circumstances that occurred that day -- and prior and after -- that render the government's version virtually impossible to swallow. Unless, of course, one is force-fed like the "detainees" held without the benefit and right of due process at Guantanamo.

They are withholding the pictures to hid something. The question is what are they hiding. One side says they are hiding pictures of what hit the Pentagon. The other side says they are hiding the location of the cameras.

Excellent question, Jerry. Since Free's total defense of the government's storyline hinges on keeping the location of the cameras a secret, the two possible scenarios and conclusions would be:

Government Action #1: Release sequential government-made pictures of the commercial airliner, from various angles, approaching the Pentagon and also just prior to impact. Release the film made by security cameras at nearby gasoline station, and potential other locations.

Government Result #1: Move the locations of the government cameras. Put all allegations of a government cover-up, and the use of a non-commercial airliner as the destructive missile, to bed.

Government Action #2: Confiscate all privately made photographs of the airliner approaching and hitting the Pentagon, and do not release photographs made by government cameras.

Government Result #2: Create suspicion and allegations of a government cover-up...forever.

Jeff G...re: Free1234.....//Free0352 does provide some plausible concepts and opinions in areas. Very few,//

I guess, what I am saying, is, just like cheap lite beer...you could get a buzz or so from Free, but in the long run you just get a headache, end up wishing you had bought something with a little more substance.... or at least something that goes better with crackers and cheese.

Arguing with "Free is futile... he already has his mind, or what passes for such, made up. I do not think he considers other view points, or even reads them. ow, gees, that's right, he is a tea bag republican.

And he's absolutely right. He hits the nail on the head 100% in the above link.

AS for twooferism... again as Maher said... tell me what color the sky is in your world? Look, overwhelmingly the evidence is on my side. Everyone from Nomb Chombskey to yes Bill Maher agree with me. You conspiracy nuts are crazy. You can't argue with crazy. All you can do, is contrast guys like you, and the facts.

Small comfort to the victims of crazed Bible thumpers shooting medical workers performing legal services. Small comfort for people in Oklahoma City. Tim McVeigh wrapped himself in Christian righteousness too.

And there were the “Spate of attacks near Ramadan trouble U.S. Muslims”?

Fundamentalism of all sorts is always potentially dangerous. Most religions have blood on their hands.

Al-Qaeda hijackers flew into the WTC 1 and 2, and crashed into Pennsylvania. We've all seen evidence of that.

We have not seen evidence of what hit the Pentagon and we have not seen evidence of what took down WTC 7.

Just saying... not promoting any conspiracy theory. In light of the fact we had neo-con war mongers looking to start a war, what harm is there asking for all the evidence? I certainly wouldn't put anything past a thug like Cheney, or even certain parties interested in "helping" the US into war with Arab countries. It's not inconceivable that some "contingencies" were in place for such attacks. I'm not saying that was likely, just not inconceivable.

Speaking of conspiracies, how about the real one where Bush demanded Richard Clarke link Saddam to 9-11?

How about the one where Bush told us Saddam and al-Qaeda were in cahoots?

How about the real conspiracies pushing nukular aluminum tubes and biological labs, and aerial drones?

With that kind of leadership, questions needed to be asked, and a compliant corporate media failed to do so.

And what side is that? The side of repression and denial and coverup? And what "evidence" are you referring to?

Hey, once all the evidence is presented in a court of law, and afterwards the available evidence still points to the same weak conclusion, then I'll agree with you. But not until then.

You're avoiding my question...have you read the white paper yet? Ya' know, the one where seismic monitoring detected several explosions in lower Manhattan just prior to the towers coming down? Yeah, that one...

Like every main stream source. Everybody with common sense. This crack pot, tin-foil-hattery of yours has been so debunked you idiots have become a punchline to a joke. You're the liberal version of Birthers. You are the people Democrats wish mainstream voters would forget about when they think of Democrats. You're the clown hatted buffoon wing of the American left.

How did you not see the giant pile of rubble fall on it at 200MPH live on television? Truth is, you don't want to know what happened. You just want a conspiracy theory.

Birhters were show evidence,

SO were you, and like birthers you refuse to look at it and in the face of overwhelming evidence hold on to your idiotic ideal out of faith and hate.

I'm sorry here, but clearly you guys and Alex Jones are basically alike on every level. Clown hatted, American hating ultra left-wing liberal bullshit. You've been totally rejected by the mainstream left for this idiocy. That should be your first clue what you have isn't a theory it's a mental illness.

Sure I believe Barack Obama benefited and possibly engineered the IRS targeting his political opponents or that GWB's immigration bill was done specifically to win a voter demographic. But as for a wide ranging, all powerful conspiracy - to do anything at all? Naaah.

I stand firm in my conviction—there is no grand plan to control your life. Either from the right or the left. Yes there are nanny staters like Mayor Bloomberg who want to control even the size of your Big Gulp. But its not part of some grand master plan, with a shadowy power pulling the strings somewhere. The truth is, nobody really cares about your life. Or mine for that matter.

Yes, there are small groups of bad people conspiring in government, the media, religion, banking, large corporations, the Freemasons, or whatever your personal boogeyman happens to be. However, to believe that whole sectors of people are working together to deprive you of something is both the height of self-importance and the throwing away of common sense.

Too many folks simply refuse to acknowledge that the world is a random, pitiless, uncaring, violent place that doesn't give a single fuck about your well-being. In the end, most will further their own self-interest instead of yours. That’s not an indictment of the world, but merely acknowledging natural law. It is neither good nor bad, that's just the way it has always been and always will be.

I wish people to get past this whole bitter and prevalent attitude that someone is out there “pulling the strings.” There isn't, at least not to a large extent unless you are in the military or prison. Otherwise, it’s all on your shoulders. You might not want to face that burden, but it’s true.

The heart and soul of conspiracy theorists is that somehow their meager lives are so important not only one powerful individual wants to control them, but several thousand of them do... and are willing to risk everything they have and spend billions of dollars on it. The whole notion is so full of hubris its not worth addressing except to mock it. Nobody needed to "cause" 9-11. I read the Congressional Resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq. 9-11 wasn't mentioned once, and Bush did it anyway. Al'Qaeda was mentioned, but nobody ever suggested Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, and the fact is members were in Iraq at the time. For right or for wrong, 9-11 had nothing to do with why we invaded Iraq. 9-11 had everything to do with why we invaded Afghanistan, which a few mineral deposits nobody knew about at the time aside, has nothing of value. Africa on the other hand is a natural resources gold mine... I mean quite literally a gold mine. Not to mention oil, diamonds and you name it, along with the most fertile soil on Earth.

We didn't invade that place at all.

So spare me. Nobody cares about your life. Nobody gives enough of a fuck about other people to bother with some hugely risky master plan. There are assholes in the world, and they're all too busy fucking each other over to care about you. You are just going to have to accept the fact that you are in control of your own life, and you are on your own.

Since when has Obama done anything progressive? As senator, he approved Bush’s secret court and telecom corporate get-out-of-jail-free card FISA Amendment. Sheesh. NOT progressive at all. Democrat loyalists are duped almost as much as Republicans.

For 22 and 1/2 years I worked as an AT&T technician, first in New York and then in California.

What I observed first-hand:

In 2002, when I was working in an AT&T office in San Francisco, the site manager told me to expect a visit from a National Security Agency agent, who was to interview a management-level technician for a special job. The agent came, and by chance I met him and directed him to the appropriate people.

In January 2003, I, along with others, toured the AT&T central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco -- actually three floors of an SBC building. There I saw a new room being built adjacent to the 4ESS switch room where the public's phone calls are routed. I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room. The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room.

In October 2003, the company transferred me to the San Francisco building to oversee the Worldnet Internet room, which included large routers, racks of modems for customers' dial-in services, and other equipment. I was responsible for troubleshooting problems on the fiber optic circuits and installing new circuits.

While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal. I saw this in a design document available to me, entitled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated Dec. 10, 2002. I also saw design documents dated Jan. 13, 2004 and Jan. 24, 2003, which instructed technicians on connecting some of the already in-service circuits to the "splitter" cabinet, which diverts some of the light signal to the secret room. The circuits listed were the Peering Links, which connect Worldnet with other networks and hence the whole country, as well as the rest of the world...

And let’s not forget that “compassionate conservatism” of the Bush Administration’s Justice Department.

Glenn Greenwald described the taste of American Fascism received by those who were planning on peaceful protest (at the 2008 GOP convention) .

"Teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets."

Here is what was reported by Marjorie Cohn at CounterPunch.

The raids targeted members of "Food Not Bombs," an anti-war, anti-authoritarian protest group that provides free vegetarian meals every week in hundreds of cities all over the world. They served meals to rescue workers at the World Trade Center after 9/11 and to nearly 20 communities in the Gulf region following Hurricane Katrina.

Also targeted were members of I-Witness Video, a media watchdog group that monitors the police to protect civil liberties. The group worked with the National Lawyers Guild to gain the dismissal of charges or acquittals of about 400 of the 1,800 who were arrested during the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Preemptive policing was used at that time as well. Police infiltrated protest groups in advance of the convention.

Nestor said that no violence or illegality has taken place to justify the arrests. “Seizing boxes of political literature shows the motive of these raids was political,” he said.

And to hear the Tea Cult crybabies whine about filing out forms for tax exemption for their "not political" anti-tax cult, you’d think that was the real tyranny. Typical whiney crybabies used to always having their way...

Its not progressivism? Then explain whey the most liberal member of the Senate, who is now our President, is all for this. Why are Diane Feinstien and Naci Pelosi for this if Progressives aren't for it? Why is Al Franken for it? Need I name a few more Progressive luminaries who of late are arguing to the hilt how Americans need to love the wire tap?

Those same people weren't against this during the Bush years despite what they said, they were against Bush being in control of it. Now that Progressives control it, they love it. Get with the program Dave, your party and its Progressive wing are in love with the surveillance state, and always have been. What they oppose is a Republican managing it. It was never anti-surveillance it was anti-Bush. Heck even the libs on this very blog are arguing for it. It is legal you know, just ask Jerry here. He's actually claiming that somehow Obama got a warrant to spy on 300 million Americans. Wow, with all our names on it, it must be a long ass warrant. I'm curious why I've never been served with it, aren't you?

Bush hasn't been President for half a decade, and yet that's who you mention. Progressives have run these programs for FIVE YEARS.

However, Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listening in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval.

Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.No matter how you slice it, even factoring partisanship, progressives are more opposed to warrantless surveillance than “good conservatives”.

""I’m on the Judiciary committee and the Judiciary committee has jurisdiction (over) N.S.A. and on (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and the Patriot Act," he said. "I availed myself of these briefings so nothing surprised me and the architecture of these programs I was very well aware of."

And

"I have a high level of confidence, that it is used…to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism," he said.The senator, who is running for re-election, said, however, that he is not confident that the proper balance has been struck between privacy and safety concerns

And there you go. Al Franken loves it. Of course being a politician he tries to play it both ways when he says

"We haven’t quite hit the exact balance we want to," he said. "I have been for more transparency and I actually co-sponsored legislation to require the FISA court to release their opinions on why they’ve decided the way they have."

The right balance of transparency? Dude we don't have any transparency. More over, how the hell do we justify a warrant for every single American to be searched. Oh wait.... we don't. Al is just playing politics to lull you douches into your sheep like normal state of mind towards your leaders.

Al Loves it. And that's just one down on your little list Dave. I wonder how many others I can get?

I also noticed Rand Paul on that list. I guess that means when he runs against Hillary in 2016 you'll be voting for him right? Right? Riiiiiiiight?

"I have been for more transparency and I actually co-sponsored legislation to require the FISA court to release their opinions on why they’ve decided the way they have."

If true, then we both agree, right?

I'm skeptical and know the potential for abuse is always there.

Yeah, Rand just wants businesses to have the right to refuse service to blacks. Makes fellow corporatist Hillary look reasonable. If those become our choices, plan on more of the Clinton Corporatist Club paving the way for more corporate written trade agreements and banking legislation. Just like Rand.

Look guy, I've known about these programs for a long time. Since 2008. I've said that here on your blog, and I said I couldn't discuss them... and I still can't. I could go to jail for a long, long time if I do. But obviously, when you work in a nerve center than manages a third of Baghdad, you see some things. It's maddening knowing something and not being able to bring it up in a debate like this. And there are still things I can't bring up. I'm glad however, that you and the general public have some indication of what they can do.

Some sources in the media are telling you this is the tip of the ice berg. All I can say about that is stay tuned. ITs safe to assume PRISM and BOUNDLESS INFORMANT are not the only programs run by the NSA and CIA.

And nobody understands the threat of Islamic Terrorism like those of us who have fought it. Nobody wants to take the fight to the enemy more than I do. But I don't want to shred civil liberties and the Constitution to do it. I believe that those who would trade freedom for security will get neither.

As for Rand Paul, of course you won't vote for him. Your Republican Derangement Syndrome knows no bounds. You'll quibble over the details, but in the end.

You love the surveillance state too. Or at least like it better than a GOP President.

It does. Least you forget, I'm not a white guy. I'm of Spanish decent.

How do I feel about places being able to refuse me service based on my race? Or for that matter, me refuse your white ass service based on your race.

I feel fucking great about it, because that works both ways.

We can know who the racists are and boycott the bastards. People have a right to not sell me stuff, even based on my race. Of course, I have the right also, to organize boycotts and protests and drive them out of business. I don't need a nanny state to fight my battles for me. I'm not a victim. Sorry white people, but we don't need you to rescue us. We can do fine on our own. We were here before you, and we'll probably be here after you are gone.

Free,We can do fine on our own. We were here before you, and we'll probably be here after you are gone.

Really? What tribe are you? Maybe we're related. I have Ottawa blood. Casino's provided much of my Mother's retirement income. My ancestors have always lived in on the Great Lakes. Yours too?

What programs YOU don’t know about are also out there. One thing for certain, the price we pay for a corporate/government complex reacting to terrorism is total loss of electronic privacy. Hell, they were warming up for all this by using their war on drugs as an excuse. Fear mongering was the tool to dupe the public back then, and it worked. Still does.

Refuse service based on your race. I feel fucking great about it, because that works both ways.

Fine, but history tells us it wasn’t so great at all. It wasn’t for Jews in Germany back in the 1930’s.

You’re too young to remember when things were very different in this country, too. Black people died because hospitals could refuse to treat them. It wasn’t boycotts and the “free market” that changed that.

Anyway, this was the part I meant that should comfort you:

Yes, “Libertarianism” on the Right is nothing more than corporatism. We see nothing about ending the drug war from these guys, only more tax cuts and de-regulation, exactly like Republicans. The Kochs only want more money. They don’t care about a war on drugs sucking our wealth and liberty. In fact, I bet they love the incarceration rates in this country. Prisons are profit to these “Libertarians”. Their ilk are not at all concerned about civil liberties for the masses. They possess the divine right of wealth and demand we all submit to their agenda. It’s not like the Tea Party is out demanding jobs, only the tax cuts and deregulation that benefit....you know who.

It’s all about greed. Just like Republicans. Being denied service at a public business is NOT FREEDOM, no matter how “great” you feel about it.

“Republican Derangement Syndrome”? Is that what you call understanding the fact they are the party serving the exclusive interests of Big Money? Well, cut those taxes and deregulate Wall Street and watch that prosperity roll in...for who again? Right. Recent history can teach us that. In fact, look at the income disparity now.

I guess I have “Corporatist Democrat Derangement Syndrome” too. Although how you call seeing realty as derangement speaks highly for the success of their propaganda. No wonder you love to spout Limbaugh slogans.

Another white guy talking about their minute percentage of Native blood. Liberals do this to be "down" with the brown people all the time. Bottom line, if you didn't grow up on a reservation, spare me.

Get over it, you're white. Move on. I on the other hand, am as white as Barack Obama is. That doesn't make me a spokesman, but I feel safe in saying Hispanics don't need white help. Chill out Elizabeth Warren.

What programs YOU don’t know about are also out there

Valid. I don't know what I don't know. But what I do know, and what is now public knowledge is creepy enough.

One thing for certain, the price we pay for a corporate/government complex reacting to terrorism is total loss of electronic privacy

B.S. Its not a secret where Al'Qaeda is recruiting and where it is based out of. We could go there and kill them wholesale if we chose. No need for all this surveillance. If anything, the raw amount of data to sift through makes the intelligence collection process inefficient.

Yes, “Libertarianism” on the Right is nothing more than corporatism

As opposed to the surveillance state and raw fascism of Progressivism. I'll take the corporations, thanks! They don't even have arrest powers.

The Kochs only want more money

And Obama wants my freedoms. I'll take the Kochs, thanks. Can we run them both for President? I trust a guy who wants to get rich, not a guy who wants raw power.

Maybe not us. I wouldn't bet it though. Corporate espionage is real. The corporate/government complex are in the surveillance business together. Didn't you know that? Thousands of corporate contractors have clearance to it.

And around the circle we go. "Progressives" are Bush and Cheney. THEY put most it in place.

Chill out Elizabeth WarrenI'm pretty chilled, Rush.

So what tribe are you from "white Spaniard"? Are you eligible for health care on the reservation like I am?

Didn't you know that? Thousands of corporate contractors have clearance to it.

Sure they do. Obviously out government doesn't own a computer factory or software development company. They have to turn to contractors. Snowden, the guy in the news of late, worked for a contractor.

It was a Libertarian who blew the whistle - not a progressive. He was a military contractor, and he blew the whistle.

And around the circle we go. "Progressives" are Bush and Cheney. THEY put most it in place.

With the help of Progressives. On this issue, there is no fundamental difference except Progressives are trying (and in your case succeeding) to trick you into thinking they don't support persistence and pervasive surveillance. Libertarians voters like myself, legislators like Rand Paul, and politically active donors like the Kochs and now whistle blowers like Snowden are the ones trying to stop this, and we all have a consistent record of being against this. If only Progressives could boast of such a record.

So what tribe are you from "white Spaniard"

The American one. I'm 25% Puerto Rican, 25% Cuban and 50% Czech. My maternal ancestors have been American Citizens since the Spanish American War - and proud to be so. My family has had relatives fight in WWI, WWII, one even fought and died fighting for Cuban liberation at the Bay of Pigs, and later members of my family fought in Vietnam, and myself in Afghanistan and Iraq. We survived all that. We and I don't need the white European man's help, my Hispanic heritage is not a handicap. Its a source of pride and strength. But that said, my family are Americans FIRST. I don't speak a lick of Spanish and don't care to learn - because this is my country and they speak English there. We don't need protection, we can protect ourselves. Like I said, we were here in America before white people and we'll be here after they were gone. In the future most Americans will be like me, having partial Hispanic decent. And we won't be a Democrat underclass as sadly the blacks have become. And I say that as a person who hopes the blacks overcome that some day. So I agree with Rand Paul, the Civil Rights Act had good provisions in it. It also had some very bad ones that don't do anyone any favors. Am I for repealing those? You bet.

Since when have the Democrats been a “progressive” party? That was before your time. Even during the civil rights era the party was still working for the military industrial complex. Both parties are corporatist now.

Both parties STILL let banks write legislation. You call that “progressive” too? The small minority of progressive politicians are not to blame for anything the government has done for decades. Reality. Can’t you see that? I suppose the more extreme type cannot.

Not sure who “we” are, but none of them were here back when the Ottawa defeated their first hostile invaders, the Iroquois. This was before Pontiac, one of my ancestors, taught the British a lesson in manners.

Not to be petty, but you have no blood native to the land that became the United States. I don’t recall any Puerto Rican or Cuban tribes around here. The Ottawa/Chippewa heritage has been here longer.

You can still stay, you’re family served. Just don’t expect me to leave. But to be clear, when you say “we” you mean me too, right? Or is there an ideological “purity” test along with your standards?

Just playing with you. Couldn't resist the “We were here in America before white people” stuff you’re spouting,.

Here’s some hypocrisy that makes Franken seem steady and resolved with his, "I have been for more transparency and I actually co-sponsored legislation to require the FISA court to release their opinions on why they’ve decided the way they have."

Just imagine how many more Americans are duped by Hannity and the FOX(R)/Limbaugh cult.

PEW supports what I say about the Right being more supportive of warrantless surveillance than progressives. Fear and trust are so easily manipulated.

Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listening in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval.

Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.

The party loyalty, and acceptance of warrantless wiretapping, is still more pervasive on the right. Although my take is this. Followers are easily manipulated. Right wing followers are just more likely to agree to warrantless surveillance. I suspect this is because they submit more to fear mongering.

Since Progressive Barack Obama got elected, and really since Naci Peloci was Speaker, though she no longer holds that post. And really, since the Democrat party put its weight behind Al Gore in 1999. Sorry if the Progressives duped you, you need to wake up to that fact. You've been had.

You call that “progressive”?

Sure. Progressives need financing like anybody else. They help set up and entrench monopolies of banks - like say Goldman Sachs for example, or Citibank - that put banks not so friendly out of business. Said banks are more than happy to harness the political muscle of progressives, and progressives are more than happy to spend their money. Its incestuous are wrong, but such is the inevitable outcome of government over-reach. I don't know why you're a bit surprised, this always happens with socialism.

Not sure who “we” are

Hispanics. You are aware Spain was the first country to colonize for any length of time North and South America right? You know Hispanics - those of use who share a common cultural and linguistic link to Spain? The English and the Dutch were a few decades behind.

The Ottawa/Chippewa heritage has been here longer

Which ethnic group is growing in this country and which is shrinking: Hispanics or Indians? Indians were here first as they walked here from Asia in prehistory, the difference is we'll be here last. Nobody argues that Hispanics are the fastest growing racial demographic in this country. So I don't think we need white people to baby sit us. My question is why do you; given the peachy historical relationship? I would think you'd be all for a little more independence and self reliance instead of servitude in trade for a welfare state? Anyway, Hispanics will do just fine. Not to be petty or anything, but don't you think it's pathetic for minority citizens to go begging white people for income equality instead of just doing it themselves?

As for Sean Hannity, I wouldn't know I don't watch. But I imagine Barack Obama has a larger voice, so watching him debate himself is far more tragic, because unlike Hannity, Obama actually makes policy. Change we can believe in! Way to go Progressives!

PEW supports what I say about the Right being more supportive of warrantless surveillance than progressives.

Actions speak louder than words. They voted for Obama.

Votes for the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 and the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2012

And none of the folks on that list are Libertarian. The guy who signed it into law (along with indefinite detention of American citizens without due process I might add) was a Progressive. So thanks for proving my point.

The Tea Party is a CONSERVATIVE movement. Libertarians are not Conservatives. Its time this country started putting more Libertarian leaning candidates in office, I say we start with Rand Paul.

"I have been for more transparency and I actually co-sponsored legislation to require the FISA court to release their opinions on why they’ve decided the way they have."

So if government breaks the law transparently its all of a sudden just fine? So by that logic, the FBI could start lining up political dissidents an shooting them, but it would be okay because they were transparent about it?

Stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Something is either illegal or its not illegal. There is no such thing as "Kinda legal," or "Kinda illegal."

Obviously I know more American history than you do. WE, as in natives, were here first. Not Puerto Ricans. Not Cubans. Not even the Czechs. That’s reality. The other reality is universal racial mixing is inevitable if the species survives long enough. Hell, we all share early human DNA, so what’s the point of all this anyway?

You just wanted to say, “We were here before you, and we'll probably be here after you are gone”, and that was incorrect. It’s so funny how you need to twist everything retroactively to fit your presumptuous positions.

So I don't think we need white people to baby sit us. My question is why do you;

I don’t. This is yet another of your ill-informed presumptions. You are full of them, by the way. I believe I already mentioned something about casinos, but for you I’ll repeat it, as usual.

You see, my tribe is doing quite well. Whites give the tribe millions of dollars in their casinos. Sweet comeuppance for the raw deals of the past, eh?

So if government breaks the law transparently its all of a sudden just fine?

Once again I’ll refresh your memory of recent history. Bush did the warrantless surveillance first, on nothing more than his consigliore Gonzales or Ashcroft’s word. Then when it was revealed he lied about warrants. I showed you the words earlier. So what happened next? He, along with Obama the corporatist, passed a FISA amendment that exonerated telecoms from their aiding and abetting the warrantless surveillance.

So in effect, if not constitutionally, their program was “legalized”. That is the part that’s not so “just fine” to a minority of Americans that you and I are in. Obama shed what little “progressive” qualities and reputation he had by that act.

I must say your definitions are pretty far out there. Banks writing legislation is also “progressive”? Sorry, it is by nature corporatism. No wonder you’re confused so much. You know what I think? I think you label anything you don’t like, or don’t understand, as “progressive”. Your wildly “flexible” definitions fail to support further use of the term in discussion.

PEW supports what I say about the Right being more supportive of warrantless surveillance than progressives.Actions speak louder than words.

Yes, as I said, “The party loyalty, and acceptance of warrantless wiretapping, is still more pervasive on the right.” Then you agree with me...or you’re not making a lick of sense again.

Like here:

The Tea Party is a CONSERVATIVE movement. Libertarians are not Conservatives.

Sorry. The Tea Party reeks of Koch brothers’ money. As you said, “Actions speak louder than words”.

Republican “Libertarians” and “Conservatives” are neither libertarian nor conservative. They are Republicans who wrap themselves in the perceived righteousness of the terms. As so amply illustrated here and everywhere else, definitions are flexible tools of deceit for the Right. The Kochs spent money on and for Republicans.

Tea Party Republicans are still Republicans. Both Ron and Rand Paul are Republicans. I wouldn’t lie to you.

This is simple reality. Say what you will, but your “flexible” definitions invalidate your points.

There is no debate on any issue without mutual agreement on definitions. Debate 101. Otherwise, you reduce the discussion to pointless arguing about definitions.

So in effect, if not constitutionally, their program was “legalized”. That is the part that’s not so “just fine” to a minority of Americans that you and I are in. Obama shed what little “progressive” qualities and reputation he had by that act

Don't dispute those events. And Progressives were along every step of the way. 100% FOR IT.

Oh they said different, but their actions speak louder than their words. You got tricked.

Progressives have grown it, nurtured it, and used it for political gain, ever since they got elected in 2008. And right here on your blog, progressives are cheering for it and you are apologizing for it.

Libertarians... have not. Ever.

And your response Dave, when Progressives do these things, is to claim the people doing them aren't really Progressives. Well dude, your Progressive leaders actions speak louder than their words. It sounds to me like you're a little confused about what being a Progressive means.

Progressivism at its heart means vast government power. Libertarianism means a government you can drown in a bathtub. Under a Libertarian ideal, government wouldn't have the tax money to do this even if it wanted to. Under the Progressive ideal, a government powerful enough to give you everything you need would by default also have the power to take away everything you have. Progressivism IS SLAVERY. And every Progressive in his heart of hearts is a slave.

You know, kinda like an Indian on a reservation begging to the white man for some more disease covered blankets and some fire water.

Know what I think? You’re deranged over the facts that the Kochs and their Tea Party Republicans are still Republicans and both Ron and Rand Paul are Republicans. You need to make bitter, perhaps racist, remarks about Indians.

Indians proudly resisted the government, and lost more, than you can imagine. They bled and suffered as they resisted the power and greed of the US. People all around the world know what happens when you say “no” to the power of American wealth.

They were militarily defeated, sent to reservations and oppressed by the US.

But Tea Nuts howl like THEY are the oppressed ones. Crybabies. And you sound just like one.

And Progressives were along every step of the way. 100% FOR IT.

No matter how you slice it, more “Conservatives” and Republicans were for it than progressives. Check the voting record and PEW stats, sport. And while you’re at it here’s something else.

Awwwwww look at Dave play the race card when his little feewings get hurt. Here's the history guy, corporations didn't put Indians or reservations. The Army did. What party was Andrew Jackson in when he ordered Indian removal? Democrat. Yeah, and now you're telling me I should trust these people with my freedom.

Not thanks. I'll trust Rand Paul till he proves he isn't trustworthy. I hope he wins 2016. I'll work hard to help that happen.

No matter how you slice it, more “Conservatives” and Republicans were for it than progressives

And no Libertarians were for it. Not one.

Where’s the part they want a police state?

In their actions. Their actions speak louder than their words. I think I said that on this thread before. Stalin claimed he wasn't for gulags many times. North Korea denies they have them. Of course, their actions speak louder than their words do. Progressivism is a gulag of the mind that leads to actual, physical gulags. Just ask all those Indians removed by Democrats or the Japanese interned by Progressive FDR... your favorite President as I recall. He was your Progressive ideal and he rounded up American citizens and without due process put them in concentration camps. Now dance and apologize for him again. Dance for your damn leadership.

You label anything you don’t like, or don’t understand, as “progressive”.

I don't label, they label themselves and Progressives label them leaders. Barack Obama, Nanci Peloci and Dianne Feinstein are well documented champions of Progressivism all but worshiped by Progressives. They say one thing... there are reams of speeches by Obama decrying the surveillance state. His actions are what counts. That's because at their heart Progressive leaders are liars...

Case in point, I proved that despite his bullshit, Stuart Smalley aka Al Franken is all for the surveillance state. I gave you the quotes and then you apologized for him and quoted probably the stupidest statement I've heard this year. He finally had to admit his support to avoid going too far afoul of the President's statements. That sunlight disinfected his ass.

Bottom line, the libertarian wing of the GOP and the Libertarian Party have never backed this disgusting and illegal policy.

Progressives have, in droves. And they will all fall in line eventually. Even you.

So you think you’re psychic too, I see. We shall see. You also seem think I’m a true believer partisan Democrat, no matter now much I say that indicates otherwise. Your ideological blindness can’t see what it doesn’t want to see.

But what do we see? We see partisans on both sides behaving the same on the surveillance issue. What you refuse to admit about conservatives, and want to place entirely on progressives, is human nature. They trust their leaders who manipulate their fear of terrorism.

I have no fear of terrorism. Never think about it. I would if I were one or your “liberated” Iraqis. I’m more afraid of something more possible, like lightning bolts, or idiot drivers on cell phones. I’d rather not allow politicians to stir my emotions nor influence my thought.

And trust me. Nothing you write hurts my feelings. It entertains me.

Example: So Stalin and North Korea are progressive too? Ha. Al Franken could take some clown lessons from you.

Here's the history guy, corporations didn't put Indians or reservations. The Army did. What party was Andrew Jackson in when he ordered Indian removal? Democrat. Yeah, and now you're telling me I should trust these people with my freedom.

I love it when you try to teach me history.

“Trust these people”. LOL. Another clown lesson. Coming from the guy who trusted Bush/Cheney and their war for political gain and crony profit.

Here’s the history behind your shallow version.

The Indian Removal Act may have well been called the “Operation Indian Freedom”. It was based on lies and supported by political and business reasons

It was supported by “good businessmen” and slaveholders, aka, good conservative Southern businessmen. They were what we call Republicans today. Turns out the real force behind the Indian Removal Act was what libertarians call “virtue”, greed and profit. Yes Jackson’s militarist racism was a factor too. It’s was really no different than “Halliburton Dick” and “Oily George” wanting to use the military for a means for personal gain and crony profit.

“Trust these people”. Free, you have always trusted the Army and Right Wing politicians who represent and promote the greed of powerful wealthy elites. You defend them all the time. You perceive and denounce corpo-dems as “progressives”. You spew Limbaugh lines to show your contempt for those who disagree with militarized corporatism.

Free: As opposed to the surveillance state and raw fascism of Progressivism. I'll take the corporations, thanks! They don't even have arrest powers.

No arrest powers, but they have money to buy and bribe politicians into passing legislation for their benefit. How do you think the War on Hemp started? Need another history lesson? People are still in jail for violating corporate-friendly ”reefer madness” legislation. So where are the crusading ”libertarians” on this issue? Probably raking in dividends from private prisons and Blackwater.

DD: The Kochs only want more money

Free: And Obama wants my freedoms. I'll take the Kochs, thanks. Can we run them both for President? I trust a guy who wants to get rich, not a guy who wants raw power.

The corporate state wants our freedoms. The Kochs were born rich. Now they use wealth to gain political power and suppress democracy and worker rights. Only a fool can’t see that’s what their Tea Party is all about. You know the Tea Cult Reps, right? They voted for the Patriot Act.

Environmentalists, peace groups and other reform advocates are frequent targets of corporate/police surveillance. Never mind they broke no laws.

But corporations are busy pushing their puppet politicians into giving them even more advantages, protections, and power of influence.

Your thing is you cannot question the rich. They are the your gods, and they profit from the reverence of wealth from you and other Republican “libertarians”. You are a medievalist in service to the Divine Right of Wealth.

I’m opposed to warrantless surveillance by both government and corporations. They both abuse power.

And I'd bet you, if it came down to Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul and there was a good chance Paul would win, you'd cast your vote for Hillary Clinton because you hate Republicans more than you care about anything else. Not voting for Obama when Obama was up against Mitt Romney is an easy way out. Nobody with any brains thought Romney had a prayer. That was an easy call to make. When the chips are down and it looked close, I'd bet the farm you'd suck it up and vote for a Clinton over any member of the GOP. Even a champion of civil liberties like Paul.

To win the first bet (we'll have to wait and see on the second - if the circumstances come about we can do it) all you have to do is use the snipping tool that is on every windows computer or its MAC counterpart, to take a picture of the email with the text visible. You can cut/paste the pic into paint or photoshop or what ever you have and blur out all you need to, to protect your privacy. However the text (minus your name, address or other personal info has to be visible.) In the email you can't say anything overtly negative about Rand Paul, and you have to say you support him in his effort to pass the linked bill and ask your Senator to cosponsor it. Lets be clear, it doesn't have to endorse Paul but it has to support Paul's efforts with the Restoration of the 4th Amendment Bill. Post the picture of the email and a picture of the sent message to a blogger post and you win the bet.

I'll admit now, if it were a Democrat sponsoring this I'd do it - and if you can find me a Democrat who is cosponsoring it I'd be happy to write my elected officials and do the same - but sadly that isn't possible now because there are no Progressives supporting it. Not one. Lets see if you would?

Bonus points if you send an email to the White House open email box and encourage Barack Obama to sign Paul's Bill "as is" if it passes. Even more bonus points if you send a similar email to Al Franken where you also chide him for his recent support of the Surveillance State and call him on his copout "Transparency" response. Even more bonus points if you send Rand Paul and email thanking him for working on the bill and for his class action lawsuit in support of our rights. Bonus point emails must be photo verifiable same as the above.

The fact is, Rand Paul is the only nationally known elected official pushing and end to the Surveillance State. There are exactly zero Progressive figures supporting it. ZERO. That's an awesome indicator of who really cares about Constitutional Rights.

The actions of your leaders speak louder than Progressive words, including your words. Why the hell should I believe any Progressive when on national television their leaders get busted lying on a daily basis.

Let's see whose really partisan on this blog. Bottom line Dave, I think your hatred for the GOP outweighs any of your so called ideals. Go ahead, prove me wrong. I'd be happy to be wrong on this and generate some support for this bill. There ya go Dave, I'm putting it down. You picking it up?

See Dave, here's a great example of what I'm talking about. Jerry was told not to like Bush, so Jerry doesn't like him. Doesn't really know why... something to do with a war somewhere or something. Oh, and Bush stealing the election with Dick Chaney from a bank somewhere using machine guns made by Diebold and then twirling their mustaches. For oil.

He was then told to like Obama, so he did. Change! Yay!

Now, Jerry used to say "Bush wire tap bad" much like "Two legs bad." Now he's told, that after Obama was given a warrant for every human on earth, that wire taping is legal now. Yay! Kinda like "Four legs good!"

Paul’s quaint effort is too little, too late and futile. Your man Dick Cheney doesn’t like it either. The corporate/government complex has done its work and “legalized” and institutionalized their practice.

How about making a real effort and offering a bill to repeal the Patriot Act? Or at least section 215.

Why is this only concerning phone records? That train left long ago. Like it or not, by precedent and now law, phone records are not an individual’s personal effects under the Fourth Amendment. They are also corporate property. We have no control over what corporations do with what they have. You generally wouldn’t have it any other way on that either.

And as certain folks have been saying for quite some time, the corporate/government complex has cemented their partnership in this area.

Back when Obama voted for Bush’s VISA amendment that exonerated telecoms as partners in surveillance, I wrote an open letter to Senator Obama:

Are you beginning to see the other half of the problem now? I’ve been outspoken on this for years. Corporations have more rights, more “free speech”, more influence on policy and legislation, and more legalized immunity from civil actions and criminal behavior, more than real living, breathing human beings. Deal with it. You wanted it that way. Republican “libertarians” and Blue Dog Democrats are corporatists. Sheep come from every ideology.

Especially if they use it to hurt Republicans and those "corportists" you hate so much.

Yup, you still miss half the problem.

Who do you think "they" are? "They" ARE Republicans and those corportists I "hate" so much. You just call them "progresives". And we know everyone to the left of, and including, Cheney is "progressive" to you.

Look at your interpretations of words. Jerry said, "I don't like it", and you see "I love it".

It demonstrates my point. Progressives are not diametrically opposed to Surveillance, even persistent Surveillance... They just don't want a Republican to be in charge of it. Oh, and using it to go after an enemy like Fox(R).

Oh yeah now they LOVE IT. Just like they love sicing the IRS on Conservatives. You need to get with the times Dave, you seem to be behind the Progressive power curve. 4th Amendment Rights for Progressives are so 2007.

Take some lessons from Jerry Critter here. He gets it. When the power of the NSA is wielded by a Progressive it is good, lawful, and necessary. When wielded by a Conservative it is evil, illegal and must be stamped out at all costs. At least until you folks get another Progressive in there.

If ALL Democrats are progressive, and none are corporatists playing the system, you would have a point.

I know the difference between the Progressive wing, liberal wing, and blue dog wing of the Democrat Party.

Diane Feinstein, Al Franken, Barack Obama - to name a few, are in the Progressive wing.

Note the loudest objections are coming from real progressives and even other Dems, like Wyden and Udall.

Bull shit. Where if the bill to stop this then? There is a lot of talk and a lot of blaming Bush and zero action. Meanwhile who do you think the Progressives support unconditionally? You yourself said Rand Paul's bill was pretty minor, they won't even support that.

Bottom line, only Libertarians are taking action on the issue. The Progressives are either arguing in support of their brother Progressive Barack Obama, or are saying one thing and doing another. I would say that makes them no different on the issue than Conservatives.

Both parties have their dupes who support the program when their guy is in power.

Not the Libertarian Party, nor for that matter the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Sorry to telly you how it is. Even your own list has Rand Paul on it, and he's done a lot more than that.

Why can't you just admit that it really isn't a problem for you as long as the GOP doesn't control it? Be honest, at least with yourself?

Then why support lawmakers who advocate it, and refuse to support law makers who fight it? That's not logical. If this issue really mattered to you, you'd be a flaming Ron Paul / Rand Paul supporting member of the Libertarian Party. Instead you self identify as a member of a group who aggressively advocates for the Surveillance State. You're either full of shit, or very confused. I can't figure out which it is.

Why can't you let go of your prejudicial notions of what I think?

Because you contradict the hell out of yourself on a post-by-post basis. You have zero intellectual consistency. You claim your against the Surveillance State but then defend Al Franken and his idiotic statements about transparency suddenly making things all better for example. There is really no grey area in this. Either you believe the 4th Amendment means individual warrants or you don't. If you do, then why support lawmakers who don't?

Show me a Republican or "Libertarian" who promotes anything for the public good

I would think supporting Constitutional Rights and individual liberty would be the ultimate public good. What good is your concept of social justice when its advocates crush individual rights? You're really telling me you're willing to trade your human rights for a welfare check? That's sad.

Did you bother to read my open letter to Senator Obama?

Yes I read it. My point is - so what? You wrote a bitchy letter. Yet you still self identify with the architects of the Surveillance State. They are not! That was Bush you say? Think again. The guy who signed the Echelon program was none other than Progressive Jimmy Carter, another leader you've expressed admiration for. You've told me on numerous occasions FDR was your favorite President... the same FDR who ran concentration camps and shredded the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments. How can I take your claims seriously when you advocate for people like that? Progressives have been in control of 2/3 of the government for five years... half a decade. They had a super majority not all that long ago for two full years. They didn't stop this, they expanded it. And here you are, apologizing for them.

The "true believer" authoritarian mind cannot be opened.

Apparently it can't. I've shown you whose out there defending the Constitution and civil rights. I've shown you whose against them.

And there you go again, Mr. Tea Party supporter. Pouring out accusations but blind to your own hypocrisy. Blind to the list of Teabrains who supported the surveillance state. Yet you still worship their Koch masters. And I mean physically support too.

How about supporting John Conyers’ bipartisan bill supporting the Fourth Amendment. Bet you don’t. Back at ya sport.

And YOU support, by your own loose definition, the ones you claim to hate, as I do indirectly. We help pay their wages. But you went further. You eagerly fought their war of choice based on lies. Hypocrite. Every politician is “supported” by us no matter how we disagree with much of what they do. At least I don’t go fight their wars based on lies, go to the Koch tent in Lansing and help in their wars against voting and worker rights. You’re quite the “freedom fighter” too.

The Pauls are anti-democracy corporatists, as are all arrogant “superior” Randroids. They serve the divine right of wealth.

The wonders of the Right Wing authoritarian, black and white mind are something to see.

You believe Manning is a traitor and Snowden is a “libertarian” hero. They both did the same thing. They exposed wrongdoings by our unaccountable government.

What a hypocrite.

But you have lots to throw at others.

Look at all your unfounded accusations:

you self identify as a member of a group who aggressively advocates for the Surveillance State

Yet you still self identify with the architects of the Surveillance State.

How can I take your claims seriously when you advocate for people like that? (As YOU have advocated for, and supported Cheney?)

That is a lot of hypocritical BS with self defined words, flexible concepts and no supporting evidence.

If you accuse someone of something, have the guts and integrity to at least indicate the reasons and evidence for your accusations. Show us the quotes. Yes, we’ve been here before. You cannot show anything I say that supports your accusations.

And how is accusation without evidence any better than monitoring phone records? You’re a hypocrite. You fought their war.

You need to put others in a little mental box in order to reinforce your sense of self-superiority.

All while you have physically supported the Right wing forces who led us to war based on lies, built the police state, and oppose what’s left of our democracy.

Progressives have been in control of 2/3 of the government for five years

That sums up your arrogance, ignorance and blindness. Corporatists have been in the White House since 1980. Wall Street has called the shots for decades. Corporate lobbyists wrote our trade agreements that are followed as law. Banks are still writing legislation. The alcohol, pharmaceutical tobacco corporate sponsored war on drugs continues. ALL of this is corporatism. Their actions speak louder than your incoherent babbling.

Only the truly deranged think that is “progressive”.

If Randroids are allowed to run our government and dictate policy, we’d be finished as a nation. Virtual neo-feudal slavery would be the fate of 99% of Americans. Randroids are Republicans who pretend to have superior values other than the “family values” scam. Same old corporatism. But we can trust them with power under the rule of “divine right of wealth”?

The Koch’s and their Tea Cult have indicated to us how they’d rule.

They are all about corporate control of government and public policy, the right to work for less, austerity, and gutted safety nets for the majority, all so the rich can get richer. Makes phone records gathering seem trivial by comparison.

But cheer up. They are winning their class war and their war on democracy. The House is controlled by Republicans despite the fact more Americans voted for Democrats. Banks are still writing legislation. All is going according to your masters’ plan.

You should be happy. But don’t be surprised when they abuse power too.

I've never said that members of the tea party movement hadn't supported the Surveillance State. I didn't use the term tea party, you did. I used the term Libertarian. You won't find any Libertarians who did. You will Progressives.

As for the war in Iraq, I did support that. Ron Paul didn't, Rand Paul didn't. The official platform of the Libertarian Party doesn't. So your entire diatribe in your above post is moot. I disagree with some of my party's positions true. However, if you were consistent in your beliefs you should be a raging Libertarian, as they have consistently been the most anti-war party. Democrats in droves have voted for our national security policy and the Progressive wing of the party has supported that. Your credibility as a person who is anti war is harmed by your support for politicians who while they say they are anti-war, vote an entirely different way.

You’re quite the “freedom fighter” too.

I think so. I'm certainly willing to fight in the political arena to end this Surveillance State. You on the other hand, don't seem to be.

How about supporting John Conyers’ bipartisan bill supporting the Fourth Amendment. Bet you don’t. Back at ya sport.

I'm not aware of his efforts. Send me some links. I think bipartisan support to end the Surveillance State is a good thing.

You believe Manning is a traitor and Snowden is a “libertarian” hero. They both did the same thing

Nobody died as a result of Snowden's links. Manning? Quite differently. Snowden leaked an over reaching and probably illegal program. Manning simply embarrassed the government because he's a bitter transvestite looking for attention and to harm his Sergeants who he feels were mean to him. One showed evidence of criminal activity. The other leaked what? A collateral damage gun camera video? What good did that do? None, other than to be his personal revenge. What good did outing Afghanis and Iraqis working with us to fight Al'Qaeda? None, unless you are a sociopath seeking to get American Soldiers killed because you think they don't like gays.

That's a huge difference. Snowden was acting to help the American people, Manning was acting to harm them.

Just as Libertarians are acting in the political system to free Americans and Progressives are acting to spy on them and enslave them to government. And you're apologizing for them.

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Cascade Township, and long-time Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Detroit introduced, as expected, the LIBERT-E Act this week with more than 30 Republican and Democratic colleagues.

I'm not familiar with that bill yet, but it looks to be a step in the right direction. The National Security Act of 1978 which your bill talks about at length, was signed by Progressive Jimmy Carter. Tells you where Progressives are on the issue.

Anyway, I will look at it in depth. If it's the Bill it appears to be, I won't write Conyers a letter I'll go into his office in person and if he's in shake his hand.

But back to the point, the next time you use Jimmy Carter as a positive example of anything you won't mind if I remind you he got this whole domestic spying ball rolling. Further, a co-sponsor of Conyer's bill IS a guy I have met, Republican Justin Amash. I think I'd better get to know him more.

Here are some of the other cosponsors of the bill

Representative Mark Sanford, R-S.C., libertarian Republican leaders like Paul Broun, R-Ga., and Walter Jones, R-N.C., as well as outspoken newcomers like Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ted Yoho, R-Fla. Coupled with Rand Paul's bill, it would seem the Libertarians are carrying a lot of the water for this effort. Where are the Progressive leaders?

But it is Conyer's (and now a slew of the GOP) bill, so good for him - and good for them. Credit where it is due.

Maybe you'd consider voting for one of them if they ran in your district... right, riiiiight.

Free0352: "...and Progressives are acting to spy on them and enslave them to government. And [Dave Dubya is] apologizing for them."

Well, except for a select handful, there aren't any progressives in Congress. Please quit equating Democrats with progressiveness. A Democrat may be a progressive, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a progressive is a Democrat. Today's congress is now seated with almost all corporatist whores, who still call themselves Republicans and Democrats. The same is true of the man occupying the White House.

It surely would be more apropos if they'd label themselves what they really are (and whom they really represent). And for you, it might possibly lessen your obvious confusion.

I talk to a lot of Conservatives, and from time to time I'll ask them stuff like - "Hey, I thought Conservatives were about small government; what's up with Bush passing TARP or Medicare Part D, and all the Conservatives who voted for that. Or the Conservatives who are voting for Medicade Expansion today?" and I always get back this answer like - "Well those people aren't really Conservative they're RINOs."

And now I'm hearing the same song and dance out of you guys; just on different issues. Of course there isn't any such thing as an ideologically pure politician. Politics is a pragmatic business. But when you get a large group of folks moving in the same direction you have to ask the questions.

When people tell me they are Conservative, I ask them what they are trying to conserve. Usually I get something about values and small government. But that's false on its face. The most Conservative government in our nation's history passed Medicare Part D - the largest unfunded mandate in U.S. history. They took over the local schools with No Child Left Behind. Right or wrong, that's not small government any way you cut it. So basically Conservatism is a lie.

So I have to ask; what are Progressives progressing to? A Surveillance State? ObamaCare which is going to jack up insurance premiums by about 60% on average? A carbon tax that is going to make it more expensive for people to get to work? UAVs droning over American cities? The IRS playing games with the tax code? Funding Al'Qaeda in Syria when they told us they'd keep us out of wars? That's progress? So like Conservatism, Progressivism is a lie. It's telling you one thing, its doing another.

Votes have consequences. Votes matter, and you folks have voted for this. The politicians and the government you wanted did this. You put it there, so you're responsible for it. Its on your shoulders. As the stimulus gets ratcheted down over the next year or so and the economy its based on takes a dive - that's your bad. You voted for it and you got what you wanted. I won't blame say - Al Franken. I'll blame YOU. You put him and his peers there. You can't walk away from it by copping out and saying "Well Franken or whoever isn't 100% ideologically pure so that's not what I wanted." Nope, you wanted a powerful government and now we have one. And its spying on us.

Thanks a bunch.

Had you supported Libertarian candidates, either in the Democrat Party, Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party this would not have happened. Assuredly so, because it costs 80 billion dollars a year. Frankly, under our tax plan it wouldn't have had the money to do it even if it wanted to; with the nice side effect being you can keep more of your own money at tax time. But instead Progressives and Conservatives wanted a big, powerful government to police the issues they each care about, and wound up with at best be a nanny state and at worst be a junta.

Yay government!

What I see, is that you both traded your freedoms for a type of welfare check. For what Dave here called "The public good." Well I have to ask, what good is that? At least with the Libertarian model a person has their rights and the chance to make it on their own. With the other models you get a state that picks winners and losers arbitrarily based on their own definitions of correctness. And it grows, and grows and grows.

Sure I'd blame all those who support the American left, just as I blame the Conservatives. You deserve to be blamed. At least many Conservatives at this stage are sorry.

Here's Howard Dean speaking to the Netroots just 15 hours ago.

“I think the American people are willing to give up some privacy in exchange for safety"

But by all means, tell me how Howard Dean really isn't a Progressive. No, he is. And like most progressives, he's cool with the surveillance state, so long as it's a Democrat running it. Here's Dean on meet the press-

From a Democratic point of view, put yourself, as a Democrat, in the position of George Bush running all this stuff and Dick Cheney — that would make me nervous.

So get with the times guys. Progressives are for this stuff. They are simply against a Republican being in charge of it... that's all.

Progressives are for this stuff. They are simply against a Republican being in charge of it... that's all.

No, that's not all. As I have agreed, Democrats are for this stuff. They are simply against a Republican being in charge of it. And don't forget MOST Republicans are for it no matter who's in charge, although they have their share of "Only when our guy does it".

Next time you go looking for a progressive voice to quote, try Bernie Sanders.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, All Republicans and most Democrats are corporatists feeding at the same trough. They both let Banks write legislation, let corporations write regulations and trade agreements, support the war on drugs, and support the military industrial complex.

Now, for a progressive viewpoint, read what Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky say about these issues.

All Republicans and most Democrats are corporatists feeding at the same trough. They both let Banks write legislation, let corporations write regulations and trade agreements, support the war on drugs, and support the military industrial complex.

BTW Libertarians support none of these things, while Progressives support all of them... well except weed. They do like weed. But beyond weed and gay marriage, Progressives support all of the above.

Free0352, like I've already said, being Democratic doesn't equate to being progressive. There are few progressives any longer. They used to comprise a fairly large part of the Democratic Party, but that's before you were crawling around in diapers. This no longer the case, and I know you're very aware of this. So please, stop the deflection and insincerity. It only makes you appear more disingenuous than you already are.

The Democratic Party, today, is just a version of "Republican-Lite". Both major parties have been bought by banking and corporate interests. This, I would hope, you can agree upon.

Your statement that "libertarians support none of these" when referring to Dave's statement that "both [Republicans and most Democrats] let [b]anks write legislation, let corporations write regulations and trade agreements, support the war on drugs, and support the military industrial complex", made me chuckle. You're probably the most ardent and passionate war-monger that I've come across in these kinds of forums. You love permanent war, and it shows. So, tell me, is that part of your mad dog streak of anti-libertarianism?

Plus, your statement "Progressives support all of the above", had me rolling on the floor.

It's obvious you don't know what a progressive is (and, honestly, now I'm starting to suspect whether you even know what libertarianism means). You've claimed to know just about everything else known to mankind. Why not this?

That's funny Jeff, because when you talk to Conservatives they say the same thing, and that the GOP has become Socialism Lite.

I think it just shows the partisanship and not the facts. I mean really, if so many Progressives are not so progressive anymore when are you going to start asking yourself "Is this for me?"

As for my stance on national security issues and the Libertarian Party's stance on those issues, we are not in agreement. I agree with Conservatives when it comes to national security. I take a lot of shit for this among Libertarians.

But it would seem, Libertarians are more progressive than your progressives are.

As for what Progressivism is, it is what it does. I don't care what it says, I care what it does.

And your elected officials are pro Surveillance State. And the ONE effort Dave could find that is against the surveillance state, is being driven by Libertarians.

So I guess my point is, perhaps its you that doesn't know what Progressivism is. It certainly isn't what you are telling me it means to you, judging by the movement's actions.

Free0352: "...if so many Progressives are not so progressive anymore when are you going to start asking yourself 'Is this for me?'"

You obviously miss the point. It's because they're not progressives...they're corporatists. When is this going to start sinking in for you? I'm not as much anti-Democrat as I'm anti-corporatist. That's the same reason I'm against half of the libertarian screed. I view that party as pro-corporatist; therefore, I'm against it, and want nothing to do with it.

"I agree with Conservatives when it comes to national security."

We've discussed this at length, many times, so you know my stance on this issue. That's why I view you as a tool.

"But it would seem, Libertarians are more progressive than your progressives are."

They're at least as progressive on most of the social issues. On economic issues, though, Libertarians are tools of the corporate-state. Like you! That's the single reason I'll never climb that horse.

"As for what Progressivism is, it is what it does. I don't care what it says, I care what it does."

I agree...but we haven't had progressive leadership for such a long time, that's probably why you're so confused about it. There are very few in Congress (and certainly not the tool that occupies the White House) who entertain progressive causes. Some of these are: (1) An amendment to the Constitution voiding corporate-personhood; (2) Universal Healthcare; (3) An end to permanent and ongoing war; (4) Slashing the Military-Surveillance Complex to a quarter of what it is today -- for starters; and (5) Universal Worker's Rights.

There are only a handful of Democrats, in Congress, who agree with these points.

"[Progressiveness] certainly isn't what you are telling me it means to you, judging by the movement's actions."

What's the "movement's actions"? Are you describing the pro-corporate Democratic Party again? If you are, haven't we been down this road enough?

So why are you a libertarian? All they do is talk. They don't do anything.

So what you're saying is I should compromise some very basic principles and jump on with either party that pretty much everyone here admits are a pack of scum bags.

Yeah that doesn't make any sense Jerry.

You obviously miss the point. It's because they're not progressives...they're corporatists

So what you're saying here Jeff, is you can live with trashing human rights and civil liberties so long as the folks doing the trashing aren't nice to corporations?

Good luck with that. I promise rouge governments have historically been a lot more problematic to their own people than any company but whatever, I won't mess with your personal prejudice. The fact is no company has the power to arrest you, or shoot you. If you don't pay your phone bill tomorrow, T Mobile won't send the SWAT team to come get you. Try that with the IRS and note the difference between the two.

What's the "movement's actions"? Are you describing the pro-corporate Democratic Party again?

So you're going to tell me, that Howard Dean isn't a real progressive. That's as credible as me saying Ron Paul isn't a real Libertarian or George Bush isn't a real Conservative.

Give me a break. With all these former progressives you'd have to wonder if there are any left outside this blog. Oh, and you'd better start telling these folks they aren't in the movement anymore, because they seem to think they're not only in it, but they're leaders of it. And you'd better talk this over with your fellow progressive rank and file, because they keep calling these folks like Dean and Franken leaders. Or maybe you might want to reevaluate what being a Progressive really means.

What I am saying is all you do is talk. You don't do anything. The only way to do anything is work through the power structure. That is why progressives work with the democrats, and the only libertarians actually trying to do something work through the republicans.

Free0352: "So what you're saying here Jeff, is you can live with trashing human rights and civil liberties so long as the folks doing the trashing aren't nice to corporations?"

No, what I'm saying is the reason our rights and civil liberties have been continually trashed, and in an accelerating manner, is because the corporate-state has taken hold. Our government has already been hijacked by the elite and corporate interests, and like the marionette having its strings pulled by the manipulator up above, our government's largest foreign and domestic policies are dictated by those who are unelected and mostly unseen.

"That's as credible as me saying Ron Paul isn't a real Libertarian or George Bush isn't a real Conservative."

Since you're the one contrasting the differences between Dean and Paul, I'm not inclined to agree with it. As far as Bush, that's right -- he isn't a conservative. He's a neoconservative. There's a huge difference. You've made this point yourself, a few different times, on this very blog. Are you changing your stance, now, because it's more convenient? Or is your memory really that bad?

I'm tellin' ya', they fucked you when they exposed you to all of that DU. You're a dead man walking. You know that, don't you?

the reason our rights and civil liberties have been continually trashed, and in an accelerating manner, is because the corporate-state has taken hold.

Exactly. If they CAN do it, they WILL do it. Same thing as war.

In fact, invading Iraq was just the other side of the coin of the corporatist neocon response to the opportunity provided by terrorist actions. Free bought that part hook, line and sinker, yet is outraged at the other side of the same coin perpetrated by his same masters.

Let's try get back to earth for a second. Warrantless surveillance is not part of the progressive agenda. It is not even a part of a conservative agenda. It is an institutionalized response by power to an opportunity. The fact it is supported by both democrats and republicans, and most people, is due to human nature. Fear is the easiest emotion to generate and to manipulate. This is why people agreed to invade Iraq. Bush told us Saddam had connections to, and was training, al-Qaeda. Not to mention those "biological labs" and "nukular" aluminum tubes.

What Free can't get through his skull is the fact there are progressive civil libertarians. He thinks only Right Wing libertarians care for civil liberties. But then, we know he buys into half the program anyway. As I've noted before, he only sees half the problem. He's incapable of understanding corporate power and manipulation of government applied contrary to the public good. ONLY government is the villain to him...Except when there's a "good war" to be had, which is all the time.

Fiscal conservatism isn't a club you join its being frugal with money. You can be a liberal democrat and have a wise spending plan. So by that standard, nope, George Bush was not a fiscal conservative. He was a major ginormous GOP Conservative. And those guys lost all credibility for being fiscal conservatives during GWB's 8 years in. He spent and worse borrowed like a drunken sailor, and all the Conservatives went with him. Well except a handful, who are leading the Libertarian charge today.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Damn your little movement is shrinking by the minute. Whose left? Conyers? Al'Queda's rep on the hill because he represents Dearbornistan? Give me a break. Looks to me the Progressives left you behind a long time ago when it comes to civil liberties. Wave goodbye, they sold you out. Its not that they aren't progressive, its that you're not.

Dave,

Bottom line, there are 1 billion Muslims on this planet and about 20% of them want to kill every American. That's just a fact. So yup, I disagree with the Libertarian notion if we just play nice they'll leave us alone. Protecting civil liberties is precisely the reason I want to kill them first, so we don't need these Constitution crushing programs to protect this country.

But that doesn't change the fact that Progressives have sided with me on this issue. Sorry guy, they're supporting drone strikes and hell, they're going well beyond my willingness to combat terrorism by bugging every American. But its cute how you'll try to change the subject to a totally unrelated issue when you don't have a leg to stand on. Here's the deal, liberal Democrats and many progressive Democrats have had half a decade, half of which they had a super majority, to turn off the domestic spying.

Instead they grew it. But no really, tell me again how Howard Dean and Al Franken and everybody else isn't really a progressive.

Seems to me the only two people on Earth that meet your criteria are you and Jeff here. Oh and John Conyers, and the only reason he's supporting the Libertarian position is he has to because of his district being the Surveillance State's prime targets.

Still can’t get it through your skull there are progressive civil libertarians, we see.

Same old same old. No information, just opinion from you. At least I bothered to give a thoughtful account of why both progressives and conservatives fall in line. You add nothing to the discussion.

1 billion Muslims on this planet and about 20% of them want to kill every American

Even though we know where you pulled that number from, thanks to invading Iraq, drones, and blind obedience to the Israeli Right, that percentage can only grow. Your neocons are the ones to thank for all of that.

“Changed the subject”? Oh, you mean that two sides of the same coin thing? Well, then, that’s NOT changing the subject. Or was it my statement on human nature, power and exploiting fear?

Conyers also objected to your war of choice in Iraq in addition to the surveillance. So that makes him “not progressive” then, right?

Reality is so much easier when you can bend it to one’s individual definitions. That’s how you must operate. But it is entertaining.

Still can’t get it through your skull there are progressive civil libertarians, we see

All two of you. Wow. I'm impressed.

Even though we know where you pulled that number from, thanks to invading Iraq, drones, and blind obedience to the Israeli Right, that percentage can only grow

Okay, lets say its .01%. We still have to kill them, because there really isn't any common ground to negotiate. You're right, I have a blind obedience to killing our sworn enemies who are trying to kill us first. My question is why don't you? After all, progressives are on my side of this argument. Obama even has a kill list.

Conyers also objected to your war of choice in Iraq in addition to the surveillance. So that makes him “not progressive” then, right?

Oh get real. Its obvious that a huge majority of Conyers' (D - Dearbornistan) constituents are Arab and Muslim. Dearborn has more Arabs living in it than Saudi Arabia. That is not an exaggeration BTW, that part of Wayne county is the largest Muslim community outside of the middle east. So since they are obviously the primary target of the Surveillance State, his voters will crucify him were he to vote with the fellow Progressives. Conyers' support has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with political survival. He's on the right side of the issue, for the wrong reasons. He's a corrupt old letch anyway. His wife just got out of prison for her corruption charges. Conyers is one of the dirtiest members of government anywhere. But I'm still glad he introduced his bill.

So aside from the Congressman from Derka Derka land, what Progressives in government do you have left?

Not many. And pretty soon its going to just be you and Jeff here. They are abandoning you to support Obama. Get over it. It happened to the Conservatives too a few years ago under Bush. The question is, do you boys have the integrity to man up and leave them?

John James Conyers, Jr. (born May 16, 1929) is the U.S. Representative for Michigan's 13th congressional district,[2] serving in Congress since 1965 (the district was numbered as the 1st District until 1993, and as the 14th district from 1993 to 2013). The district includes the western half of Detroit, as well as Dearborn, Highland Park and most of the downriver suburbs. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He is currently the second longest-serving incumbent member of the House (after fellow Michigan Democrat, John Dingell) and the second-longest incumbent member of the entire Congress by length of service (also after Dingell).

Dingell has Dearborn Heights. Conyers has Dearborne proper since the redistricting.

Check your facts.

As for the population of the Dearborn, its racial demographic is famous.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the city with the largest percentage of Arab Americans is Dearborn, Michigan, a southwestern suburb of Detroit, at nearly 40%. The Detroit metropolitan area is home to the largest concentration of Arab Americans (403,445), followed by the New York City Combined Statistical Area (371,233), Los Angeles (308,295), Chicago (176,208), and the Washington D.C area. (168,208).[3]

I highly doubt Conyers is going to ignore 403,445 votes. Especially in a district that loses population on other demographics every year.

So there's your ONE TRUE PROGRESSIVE. He's laying in bed every night with convicted corruption. I'm suuuuuure he knew nothing of the bribes. Yup, your one true progressive has had so many ethics violations its fucking unfathomable how he is still in office. Oh wait, yes it is. He's the anti-Israel pro Muslim vote on the hill. I guess those 403,445 Muslim votes count for something. Especially in Detroit, where voters vote early and often.

In fact, here is a link from Conyer's website that shows all the precincts in his district. Please for the crowd, tell us what the second one on the list is?

Guy, I'm from fucking right next door in Hamtramck, I know my own fuck'n neighborhood I grew up in. I thought you knew Detroit? Which is it? Were you dancing the rain dance on the reservation or are your from The D? Not too many indian casinos' in the metro area.

Maybe you should check your sources before you run your mouth? You'll look a lot less of a clown when you do that. Schools out. Your welcome. That will conclude our political science class for the day.